Mobility for IPv6 (mip6)

Dirk.von-Hugo | 1 Oct 2010 13:00

Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-07.txt; and, Re: Finishing RFC 3775bis

Hi Charlie,

... and I MAY have detected further very minor nits like

P.21
"Home Address Destination option" => "Home Address destination option" 
P.22
"the Binding Updates messages" => "the Binding Update messages"
P.66 
"is the first Prefix Length bits" => "is given by the first Prefix Length bits"
P.106
"Mobile Prefix
   Advertisements messages" => "Mobile Prefix
   Advertisement messages"

... and finally beside 50 something times spelling "Binding Cache entry" we also have still 8 times
"binding cache entry" within the document - IMHO this should be harmonized  

Otherwise it's fine with me - thanks!

Best regards

Dirk  

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: mext-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Laganier, Julien
Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Oktober 2010 00:56
An: Charles E. Perkins; mext <at> ietf.org
Cc: mext-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-07.txt; and, Re: Finishing RFC 3775bis

(Continue reading)

headers

Charles E. Perkins | 1 Oct 2010 19:36

Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-07.txt; and, Re: Finishing RFC 3775bis


Hello Julien,

On 9/30/2010 3:55 PM, Laganier, Julien wrote:
> Hello Charlie,
>
> Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>>
>> Hello again folks,

>> I have made the next revision of rfc3775bis:
>>    www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf79/draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-07.txt
>>
>> I expect to submit it very soon unless there is some
>> gross error somewhere.
>
> Thanks, I've only found two nits that you might want to fix before submitting:
>
> 1. "A more detailed list of the changes since RFC 3775 may be found in (see Appendix A)" =>  "A more detailed
list of the changes since RFC 3775 may be found in Appendix A."
>
> 2. I'd personally prefer to have the changes in the last Appendix, so B instead of A.

Done!

Regards,
Charlie P.

headers

Charles E. Perkins | 1 Oct 2010 20:38

Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-07.txt; and, Re: Finishing RFC 3775bis


Hello Dirk,

Thanks for your observant review!

On 10/1/2010 4:00 AM, Dirk.von-Hugo <at> telekom.de wrote:
> Hi Charlie,
>
> ... and I MAY have detected further very minor nits like
>
> P.21
> "Home Address Destination option" =>  "Home Address destination option"
> P.22
> "the Binding Updates messages" =>  "the Binding Update messages"
> P.66
> "is the first Prefix Length bits" =>  "is given by the first Prefix Length bits"
> P.106
> "Mobile Prefix
>     Advertisements messages" =>  "Mobile Prefix
>     Advertisement messages"
>
> ... and finally beside 50 something times spelling "Binding Cache entry" we also
> have still 8 times "binding cache entry" within the document - IMHO this should
> be harmonized 

Done!  ... although I won't absolutely guarantee all
instances of the latter...

I also fixed "binding update" to be "Binding Update".

(Continue reading)

headers

Laganier, Julien | 1 Oct 2010 22:33

Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-07.txt; and, Re: Finishing RFC 3775bis

Thanks Charlie, I think you can post the revised version and I will follow up with requesting publication.

--julien

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mext-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Charles E. Perkins
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:39 AM
> To: Dirk.von-Hugo <at> telekom.de
> Cc: mext <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-07.txt; and, Re:
> Finishing RFC 3775bis
> 
> 
> Hello Dirk,
> 
> Thanks for your observant review!
> 
> On 10/1/2010 4:00 AM, Dirk.von-Hugo <at> telekom.de wrote:
> > Hi Charlie,
> >
> > ... and I MAY have detected further very minor nits like
> >
> > P.21
> > "Home Address Destination option" =>  "Home Address destination
> option"
> > P.22
> > "the Binding Updates messages" =>  "the Binding Update messages"
> > P.66
> > "is the first Prefix Length bits" =>  "is given by the first Prefix

(Continue reading)

headers

marcelo bagnulo braun | 4 Oct 2010 10:28

[MEXT] Agenda items for beijing

  Let us know if you want a slot for the beijing meeting

Regards, marcelo

headers

Behcet Sarikaya | 4 Oct 2010 18:31

[MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding -09 vs -10

Dear authors,
There was an action field in Flow Identification Mobility Option in -09. This field has been removed in -10.

Any explanation why? Please indicate if there was a comment for removing it.

Regards,

Behcet

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

headers

Laganier, Julien | 4 Oct 2010 19:43

Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding -09 vs -10

There were only two meaningful values for the Action field, forward and discard. Lars Eggert (TSV AD) had a DISCUSS on the basis that the discard action turns MIPv6 into a firewall control protocol, and thus we removed the discard action. With only one Action left, i.e., forward, the Action field lost its meaning and was removed.

--julien

From: mext-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 9:31 AM
To: George Tsirtsis; Hesham Soliman; mext <at> ietf.org
Cc: Tsirtsis, George
Subject: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding -09 vs -10

Dear authors,
There was an action field in Flow Identification Mobility Option in -09. This field has been removed in -10.

Any explanation why? Please indicate if there was a comment for removing it.

Regards,

Behcet

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

headers

Behcet Sarikaya | 4 Oct 2010 20:46

Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding -09 vs -10


>
>From: "Laganier, Julien" <julienl <at> qualcomm.com>
>To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya <at> ieee.org>; George Tsirtsis 
><tsirtsis <at> googlemail.com>; Hesham Soliman <Hesham <at> elevatemobile.com>; 
>"mext <at> ietf.org" <mext <at> ietf.org>
>Cc: "Tsirtsis, George" <tsirtsis <at> qualcomm.com>
>Sent: Mon, October 4, 2010 12:43:32 PM
>Subject: RE: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding -09 vs -10
>
> 
>There were only two meaningful values for the Action field, forward and discard. 
>
>Lars Eggert (TSV AD) had a DISCUSS on the basis that the discard action turns 
>MIPv6 into a firewall control protocol, and thus we removed the discard action. 

>With only one Action left, i.e., forward, the Action field lost its meaning and 

>was removed.

I respectfully disagree.

This field has been there all over. It should be kept possibly with a statement 
other actions TBD.

Regards,

Behcet

> 
>--julien
> 
>From:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet 
>Sarikaya
>Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 9:31 AM
>To: George Tsirtsis; Hesham Soliman; mext <at> ietf.org
>Cc: Tsirtsis, George
>Subject: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding -09 vs -10
> 
>Dear authors,
>  There was an action field in Flow Identification Mobility Option in -09. This 

>field has been removed in -10.
>
>Any explanation why? Please indicate if there was a comment for removing it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Behcet
>

headers

George Tsirtsis | 4 Oct 2010 21:06

Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding -09 vs -10

FWIW, the bits that used to make up the Action field are still there
and still available (i.e.,  reserved for future use).

The WG can at any time turn these back to a Action field, assuming
someone comes up with a valid action. The effort needed to do this is
not a lot more than having to define a new action value had we
retained the Action field in the specification, so in practice there
is no difference and no flexibility/extensibility has been lost.

Having said that, there aren't that many things one can do to a packet
(i.e., possible actions)  and we have considered a number of them, all
of which have been rejected.

George

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Behcet Sarikaya
<behcetsarikaya <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>From: "Laganier, Julien" <julienl <at> qualcomm.com>
>>To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya <at> ieee.org>; George Tsirtsis
>><tsirtsis <at> googlemail.com>; Hesham Soliman <Hesham <at> elevatemobile.com>;
>>"mext <at> ietf.org" <mext <at> ietf.org>
>>Cc: "Tsirtsis, George" <tsirtsis <at> qualcomm.com>
>>Sent: Mon, October 4, 2010 12:43:32 PM
>>Subject: RE: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding -09 vs -10
>>
>>
>>There were only two meaningful values for the Action field, forward and discard.
>>
>>Lars Eggert (TSV AD) had a DISCUSS on the basis that the discard action turns
>>MIPv6 into a firewall control protocol, and thus we removed the discard action.
>
>>With only one Action left, i.e., forward, the Action field lost its meaning and
>
>>was removed.
>
> I respectfully disagree.
>
> This field has been there all over. It should be kept possibly with a statement
> other actions TBD.
>
> Regards,
>
> Behcet
>
>>
>>--julien
>>
>>From:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet
>>Sarikaya
>>Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 9:31 AM
>>To: George Tsirtsis; Hesham Soliman; mext <at> ietf.org
>>Cc: Tsirtsis, George
>>Subject: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding -09 vs -10
>>
>>Dear authors,
>>  There was an action field in Flow Identification Mobility Option in -09. This
>
>>field has been removed in -10.
>>
>>Any explanation why? Please indicate if there was a comment for removing it.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Behcet
>>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

headers

Laganier, Julien | 4 Oct 2010 21:10

Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding -09 vs -10

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> 
> Laganier, Julien wrote:
> >
> > There were only two meaningful values for the Action field, forward
> > and discard.
> >
> > Lars Eggert (TSV AD) had a DISCUSS on the basis that the discard
> > action turns MIPv6 into a firewall control protocol, and thus we
> > removed the discard action.
> >
> > With only one Action left, i.e., forward, the Action field lost its
> > meaning and was removed.
> 
> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> This field has been there all over. It should be kept possibly with a
> statement other actions TBD.

Having a field which always encode a single value (i.e., forward) is useless. 

If you ever come up with an action that needs to be signaled in the FID option, there are still 8 bits reserved
there so you're fine.

--julien

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

14	March 2012
20	February 2012
16	January 2012
35	December 2011
59	November 2011
30	October 2011
10	September 2011
83	August 2011
74	July 2011
14	June 2011
11	May 2011
7	April 2011
72	March 2011
36	February 2011
61	January 2011
5	December 2010
16	November 2010
69	October 2010
81	September 2010
45	August 2010
53	July 2010
36	June 2010
27	May 2010
86	April 2010
73	March 2010
36	February 2010
1	January 2010
39	December 2009
31	November 2009
109	October 2009
86	September 2009
57	August 2009
73	July 2009
148	June 2009
287	May 2009
175	April 2009
251	March 2009
41	February 2009
105	January 2009
169	December 2008
238	November 2008
101	October 2008
42	September 2008
56	August 2008
313	July 2008
248	June 2008
141	May 2008
181	April 2008
320	March 2008
194	February 2008
121	January 2008
263	December 2007
273	November 2007
96	October 2007
120	September 2007
93	August 2007
76	July 2007
265	June 2007
149	May 2007
79	April 2007
167	March 2007
116	February 2007
40	January 2007
64	December 2006
178	November 2006
202	October 2006
126	September 2006
126	August 2006
214	July 2006
226	June 2006
67	May 2006
250	April 2006
178	March 2006
29	February 2006
36	January 2006
169	December 2005
104	November 2005
375	October 2005
110	September 2005
115	August 2005
113	July 2005
72	June 2005
46	May 2005
152	April 2005
158	March 2005
216	February 2005
81	January 2005
110	December 2004
157	November 2004
140	October 2004
148	September 2004
129	August 2004
171	July 2004
152	June 2004
122	May 2004
104	April 2004
108	March 2004
58	February 2004