Hi, I have read this draft and some questions come to my mind. Let me know my understanding is correct or not first.
Actually, this draft comes to a proposed container option to be delivered by a PBA message, enabling the LMA to put various parameters related to the MAG enforcement, not doing it individually for less signaling overhead(?) And when I saw following sentence "Configuring aggressive values of parameters such as re-registration timeout and heartbeat interval can potentially create considerable signaling load on the LMA." I was expecting you would take care of it in terms of efficient transmission perspective as well. Is it out-of-scope, right? Two minor typos are, In Introduction, aggresive -> aggressive in 5.2, reveived -> received(?) Regards, Seil Jeon -----Original Message----- From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 2:14 AM To: [email protected]; Jouni; 成 鹏 Subject: [DMM] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-01 Folks, This email starts the WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-01. Post your comment to the mailing list and also add your issues/correction requests/concerns etc into the Issue Tracker. WGLC #2 Starts: 6/7/2016 WGLC #2 Ends: 6/21/2016 EOB PDT Regards, Jouni & Dapeng _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
