Alper, First of all, I am open to suggestions to improve the description. If you feel it is simpler to combine RM-CP and LI under CP-DP separation, I am open to suggestions to make the description simple and general.
The change, however, was an attempt to resolve all the previous comments. So I first try to make the description correct in the current draft: The current draft has Routing management and Location Information. Without CP-DP separation, they are RM and LI With CP-DP separation, the data plane has RM-DP, and the control plane has RM-CP and LI. H Anthony Chan -----Original Message----- From: Alper Yegin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 3:38 PM To: h chan Cc: [email protected]; Jouni Korhonen; Charlie Perkins; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-04 Anthony, LI == FM-CP ? Alper On Jul 3, 2014, at 11:07 PM, h chan wrote: > I also like to try more generic wording. How about the following: > > 2. Internetwork Location Information (LI) function: managing and > keeping track of the internetwork location of an MN. The > location information may be a binding of the IP advertised > address/prefix (e.g., HoA or HNP) to the IP routing address of > the MN or of a node that can forward packets destined to the MN. > It is a control plane function. > > In a client-server protocol model, location information query and update > messages may be exchanged between a location information client > (LIc) and a location information server (LIs). > > 3. Forwarding Management (FM) function: packet interception and > forwarding to/from the IP address/prefix assigned to the MN, > based on the internetwork location information, either to the > destination or to some other network element that knows how to > forward the packets to their destination. > > FM may optionally be split into the control plane (FM-CP) and > data plane (FM-DP). > > They are two basic functions of a network: to process information and to > forward. It also specifically includes "binding" in the information. > > H Anthony Chan > > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 3:23 AM > To: Jouni Korhonen; Charlie Perkins; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC #2 for > draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-04 > > Hi, > > Just to explain why we chose the term "Location management" instead of > "binding management": > > Actually, we have considered that "binding management" has too much IP > mobility flavor and we wanted something more generic. BTW, of course, LM > refers to IP location management... "binding management" is fine but it may > implicitly lead the reader to consider only IP mobility protocols... So, we > use "Location management" to be more generic and open the door to other > mobility management mechanisms. That said, I'll not oppose to use "binding > management" if there is a group consensus. > > Pierrick > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : dmm [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Jouni Korhonen >> Envoyé : mercredi 4 juin 2014 22:29 À : Charlie Perkins; [email protected] >> Cc : [email protected] Objet : Re: [DMM] WGLC #2 for >> draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis- >> 04 >> >> >> Charlie, >> >> Right, sorry for missing these. >> >> - jouni >> >> >> 6/3/2014 8:37 AM, Charlie Perkins kirjoitti: >>> >>> Hello Jouni, >>> >>> I communicated three issues: >>> >>> - The gap does not explain the gaps between the requirements and >>> FMIP / [seamoby] documents / [hokey] >>> - The document does not explain the relevance of the SIPTO example >>> in fulfilling the requirements. In fact, SIPTO has "limited mobility >>> support". >>> - The document uses terminology "LMs" and "LMc" that could be >>> improved. Almost every existing IETF approach refers to some sort >>> of "binding management", and it would be better to stay aligned >>> with that. This is especially true lately, since "location >>> management" >>> is relevant to advertisements and even surveillance. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Charlie P. >>> >>> >>> On 6/2/2014 9:25 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> The WGLC has ended for this I-D. There was one comment on the list: >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg01152.html >>>> >>>> I also sent few editorial/typo correction comments offline to the >>>> authors while doing my review for the proto write-up. >>>> >>>> We take the I-D passed the WGLC #2 but a new quick revision to >>>> include the two comments is needed before we ship the I-D out of >>>> the >> WG. >>>> >>>> - Jouni (as a DMM co-chair) >>>> >>>> >>>> 5/26/2014 6:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> This email starts a one week WGLC #2 for >>>>> draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-04. Issue you comments >>>>> to the mailing list and place possible tickets to the issue tracker. >>>>> There are quite a few changed mainly to tackle Charlie's comments. >>>>> >>>>> The WGLC ends 2ns June 2014 EOB (EEST). Silence is accounted as an >>>>> acceptance for the content. >>>>> >>>>> - Jouni (as a DMM co-chair) >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dmm mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > ______________________________________________________________________ > ___________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par > erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les > pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, > used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
