Re: WG Last Call for NEMO MIB

It's been over a month with no comments received yet. Last chance for 
making comments on the MIB.

TJ

Re: WG Last Call for NEMO MIB

T.J. Kniveton wrote:
> It's been over a month with no comments received yet. Last chance for 
> making comments on the MIB.

TJ I've made some comments on March 14th, acknowledged by first author, 
but not all reflected in the current draft... 

The diff between the draft I reviewed and the draft-03 is at:
https://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-mib/draft-ietf-nemo-mib-03-from-02.wdiff.html

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave <at> cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [nemo] Re:Comments on draft-ietf-nemo-mib-02.txt
Date: 2007-03-15 06:42:24 GMT

Hi Alex,

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu <at> gmail.com] 

[Fwd: Forward of moderated message]

Hi, sorry, but I'm trying to figure out how the new mailman list buttons 
work.  This message has been posted to nemo list but held for approval 
because sender not subsribed...

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

From: Hi, sorry, but I'm trying to figure out how the new mailman list buttons work. This message has been posted to nemo list but held for approval because sender not subsribed... Alex ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ <nemo-bounces <at> ietf.org>
Subject: Forward of moderated message
Date: 2007-09-05 11:43:09 GMT

[Fwd: Forward of moderated message]

Hi, sorry, but I'm trying to figure out how the new mailman list buttons 
work.  This message has been posted to nemo list but held for approval 
because sender not subscribed...

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

From: Hi, sorry, but I'm trying to figure out how the new mailman list buttons work. This message has been posted to nemo list but held for approval because sender not subscribed... Alex ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ <nemo-bounces <at> ietf.org>
Subject: Forward of moderated message
Date: 2007-09-05 11:43:10 GMT

FW: [Mip6] LC for DSMIPv6

Sorry forgot to add nemo, please see below 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:Hesham <at> elevatemobile.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:01 PM
To: 'Mobile IPv6 Mailing List'
Subject: [Mip6] LC for DSMIPv6

Folks, 

I believe the lasct call for DSMIPv6 has now concluded. I'm preparing a
summary of the comments raised during the last call to send out to the list
before I update the draft. Thanks to everyone for sending their comments.
I'll send the summary shortly.

Hesham

Re: WG Last Call for NEMO MIB

Hi Alex,

So in order to avoid everyone digging into the archives, what are the 
comments you gave which have not been considered ? Then, next question I 
will ask to MIB authors is why they haven't considered these ?

Thierry.

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> T.J. Kniveton wrote:
>> It's been over a month with no comments received yet. Last chance for 
>> making comments on the MIB.
> 
> TJ I've made some comments on March 14th, acknowledged by first author, 
> but not all reflected in the current draft... 
> 
> The diff between the draft I reviewed and the draft-03 is at:
>
https://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-mib/draft-ietf-nemo-mib-03-from-02.wdiff.html 
> 
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
> ______________________________________________________________________

RE: WG Last Call for NEMO MIB

Hi Thierry,

Glen did the edit for this revision. Alex had suggested
some new knobs/objects. But, the general thought was to
keep the objects low, as there were too many objects
and so could not be added. The base MIB structure is
to stay close to 3963 and the suggested objects that are
not directly specified as config settings in that draft
were added at discretion.

Sri 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Ernst [mailto:thierry.ernst <at> inria.fr] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 9:17 AM
> To: 'ml-nemo WG'
> Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; T.J. Kniveton
> Subject: Re: [nemo] WG Last Call for NEMO MIB
> 
> 
> Hi Alex,
> 
> So in order to avoid everyone digging into the archives, what are the 
> comments you gave which have not been considered ? Then, next 
> question I 
> will ask to MIB authors is why they haven't considered these ?
> 
> Thierry.
> 
>

Re: WG Last Call for NEMO MIB

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> 
> Hi Alex,
> 
> So in order to avoid everyone digging into the archives, what are the
>  comments you gave which have not been considered ?

Right... sorry, it was attached to that mail.  In short:

-call it "egress" instead of "roaming" interface, as per terminology in
  rfc3963 and nemov4 draft.
-agreed to remove the nemoHomeNetworkPrefixTable
-call it nemoOpNotPermitted instead of NotSupported, as per rfc
  terminology.
-typo 'q' in 'IPv6q".

And yes, I've suggested a new knob for triggering DHAAD upon each
handover, Sri said too many knobs, and then I said ok, I can do it
locally configured.

But I've also suggested that the nemoPrefixTable should contain a Home
Address for each prefix, and Sri said there's only one HoA for each MR.
  A thing to which I disagree completely.

Alex

> Then, next question I will ask to MIB authors is why they haven't
> considered these ?
> 
> Thierry.

DSMIPv6 current status

Folks, 

Just a quick progress on the draft. There is currently one issue being
discussed, which is the use of IKE in DSMIPv6. This was raised by Christian
last week. Other than that, all the comments are pretty straight forward. 

I'll send an update with one or more proposals soon. 

Hesham

Prefix Delegation documents

Hello,

I'm wondering what is the current status of the Prefix Delegation  
documents for NEMO: one seems to be still active and is referenced by  
the NEMO charter page (draft-ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation) but the  
other WG document (draft-ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd) does not appear  
anymore. Is it still supported by the WG?

Regards,
--

-- 
Romain KUNTZ
kuntz <at> lsiit.u-strasbg.fr
Louis Pasteur University - Networks and Protocols Team