Thanks! Will wait for the next version! > Am 18.08.2017 um 03:08 schrieb Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]>: > > Hi Mirja, > > Thank you for your quick feedback. Please see inline … > > > > On 8/17/17, 6:12 AM, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > <snip> .. keeping only the open issues. > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 3) This document does not really normative specify the use of the newly >>>> defined >>>> options. It only gives an examples but it does not specify normatively >>>> any >>>> actions that need to performed on receipt of these options. How does >>>> the >>>> MAG >>>> know if the LMA does not support Multipath binding? An LMA that does >>>> not >>>> implement this spec will not send back an error message. Why are there >>>> two >>>> different options? What happens if one of the options is present in the >>>> Proxy >>>> Binding Update but not the other? >>>> >>> >>> >>> This is a good point. There is an implicit assumption that the LMA >>> behavior is consistent with the behavior when dealing with any unknown >>> options. >>> We can put a note that the PBU will rejected with error code 128. >> >> That's good. Are you supposed to resend without the new options if you >> received 128? And again what happens if only one option is present? > > I will take care of this. Will add considerations on both LMA/MAG behavior > when there is version incompatibility. Will post a new rev with these > considerations. But, thank you; we definitely overlooked this part. > > > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> COMMENT: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Please also clarify the definitions of Interface Label and Binding >>>> Identifier >>>> as requested by the gen-art review (Thanks Robert!) >>>> >>> >>> Interface label is a static field, Ex: “LTE-Interface”, “my blue >>> interface”. Traffic policy is tied to this static label, >>> >>> HTTP Flow: Use LTE-Interface, if not available, use “WiFI-Interface”. >>> Label is tied to a policy; which the MAG and LMA will translate it bind >>> the flow to a dynamically created tunnel using the CoA from that >>> interface. >>> >>> Binding identifier is what is dynamically generated and using to >>> identify >>> a specific binding on the LMA. >> >> I think this comment was on the way it is described in the draft. Maybe >> the wording can be further clarified there. Here is the original text >> from the genart review of Robert Sparks: > > > I have looked at both the definitions and I agree it needs to some > clarification. I will fix this. > > > > >> >> "* I still find the definitions of Interface Label and Binding Identifier >> confusing. >> I suspect they _both_ need to be carefully rewritten to make sure they >> are >> definitions of the terms, and not descriptions of the interactions of >> the two >> fields. Why is the Interface Label definition talking so much about >> binding? >> As currently written, that last sentence of the Binding Identifier >> definition says the document says the mobile access gateway assigns >> a single unique binding identifier for each of its interfaces. „ >> >> >> Thanks! >> Mirja >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
