Hi Thomas, Thanks for your comments. Please see in-line:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Zuniga, Juan Carlos < [email protected]> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas C. Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 6:33 PM > > To: Zuniga, Juan Carlos > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [multimob] WG adoption call on draft-zuniga-multimob- > > pmipv6-ropt > > > > Hi Juan Carlos, > > > > I was just browsing over the ropt draft and would like to add some > > comments that relate to my previous comments given a year ago (see > > below). > > > > The status of the current document: > > > > * Section 3.5 "PMIPv6 enhancements" is now out, so the section 3 has > > returned to informational content. > The document has been restructured as per the last presentation at IETF84. There is no section 3.5 in the last two versions, so if you refer to the current document please refer to version 02. > > > > * IPv4 compatibility: You have added a section that simply points to > > RFC 6224 - however, I don't think situations are exactly comparable. > > RFC > > 6224 relies on the GRE-tunnel infrastructure MN <-> MAG <-> LMA. This > > is > > not true for the MTMA, which does not have MN-specific state. I don't > > think it's a big issue, but currently the draft is not sound. > Indeed the MTMA does not have an MN-soecific state, so we will add text to clarify the differences. > > > > * Section 4.1. "Extensions to Binding Update List Data Structure" is > > completely unclear ... seems not informational. > This was discussed at the last meeting and it was clarified that we are not restricted by the charter, and that the status of the document could be changed down the process. Please take a look at the minutes from IETF84 and let's not have this discussion again. > > > > * Section 4.3 - Direct routing remains nebulous and severely lacks > > content. I should pointer to the discussion of direct routing for > > sources http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-02 > > - using the different PIM protocols in a mobility regime is by no means > > so trivial. > This is one of the options described, so we can discuss if there is a better option to achieve the same functionality in a better way. > > > > * Section 5. defines new "Dynamic IP Multicast Selector Option" ... > > this is out of scope for informational documents. > Please see comment from section 4.1 above > > > > Best regards, > > > > Thomas > > > > On 09.12.2011 18:59, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > some feedback: > > > > > > In general, I support adopting this document as a WG item - it > > > presents two valid deployment scenarios. But I guess, the intended > > > status should be informational, as this is just presenting deployment > > > advice (I know, currently the document does more ...). > > > > > > We've been discussing the two solutions (Multicast-Tunnelendpoint, > > > direct routing) for quite a while and we should come to conclusions > > ... > > > on the current document I only had a very brief look (apologies!). > > > > > > Here are three comments: > > > > > > 1.) On the quick run, I cannot see what Section 3.5 "PMIPv6 > > > enhancements" really is needed for. I know, I should re-read this (no > > > time now), still the MTM approach should work without protocol > > > modifications, I guess. > > > > > > 2.) There should be a section / solution on IPv4 compatibility > > > (including address collisions ...) as needed for PMIPv6. > > > > > > 3.) The direct routing section (4) is still rather superficial. It > > > should explain in detail how to deploy protocols, e.g., PIM-SM in the > > > presence of these PMIP tunnels ... just to avoid the confusion that > > has > > > been evident on this list since Quebec ;) . > > > > > > That's only for a quick feedback, > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > On 08.12.2011 14:53, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > >> Hello all, > > >> There was consensus on the tunnel convergence solution draft in > > >> Taipei. > > >> This mail is to confirm the consensus. > > >> > > >> > > >> This document can be found at: > > >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01.txt > > >> > > >> This mail starts a WG adoption call on this draft. > > >> > > >> The intended status for this document is proposed standard. > > >> If adopted, the draft will be named: > > >> > > >> draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-tunnel-convergence. > > >> > > >> Please your comments by December 15, 2011. > > >> > > >> > > >> Chairs > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> multimob mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > > > > > > > -- > > > > Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt > > ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor > > 7 ° > > ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, > > Germany ° > > ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875- > > 8452 ° > > ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875- > > 8409 ° >
_______________________________________________ multimob mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
