Hi Brian,
Thanks for the review! I have included answers & comments to
your comments below:
>3. Service Selection Mobility Option
>
> The Service Selection mobility option MAY be included in any Binding
> Update message. It SHOULD be included at least in the Binding
Update
> message that is sent for the initial binding registration when the
> mobile node and the home agent do not have an existing binding. If
> the Binding Update message includes any authorization related
options
> (such as the Binding Authorization Data option [1]) or
authentication
> related options (such as the Mobility Message Authentication option
> [8]), then the Service Selection option MUST appear before any
> mobility message authorization or authentication related options.
>
>(1) I don't understand the SHOULD. Surely the default case (we just
want
>basic Internet access) doesn't need this option?
The default case does not need to include the option. In that case
whatever
the HA understands as a default behavior & connectivity gets applied.
What
about rephrasing:
The Service Selection mobility option MAY be included in any Binding
Update message. If the Binding Update message includes any
authorization related options (such as the Binding Authorization Data
option [1]) or authentication related options (such as the Mobility
Message Authentication option [8]), then the Service Selection option
when present MUST appear before any mobility message authorization or
authentication related options.
>(2) The final MUST could be read in two ways. Does it need clarifying
thus:
>
> [8]), then the Service Selection option _when present_ MUST appear
before any
> mobility message authorization or authentication related options.
Yes. See above.
>...
> o Identifier: A variable length UTF-8 [3] encoded service
identifier
> string used to identify the requested service.
>
> 'ims', 'voip' and 'voip.companyxyz.example.com' are valid
examples
> of Service Selection option Identifiers. At minimum the
> Identifier MUST be unique among the home agents the mobile node
is
> authorized to register to.
>
>(3) Does this mean that a mobile node can request exactly one service?
Or
>is it possible to send more than one Service Selection mobility option
>with different identifiers, in order to request access to several
>services? If it's restricted to one service, why?
The intention is that only one dedicated service per mobile ip tunnel
is allowed. This is because the selected service may affect the
allocation of the home address & home network prefix and thus the
routing in the HA. For each mobile ip tunnel we can assign only one
address / prefix.
If we were only after different QoS treatment or filtering of packets
then multiple options could probably be allowed.
The draft should say something about the number of service selection
options in the binding update. I would go for maximum one. At least
that was my original idea.
>...
>4.3. Correspondent Node Considerations
>
> Unless the correspondent node and the home agent share the same
> knowledge about mobility services the Service Selection option is
> more or less useless information to the correspondent node. The
> correspondent node SHOULD silently ignore the Service Selection
> option.
>
>(4) I find the first sentence pointless. The second sentence seems to
>belong earlier, just after
> The service selection option SHOULD NOT be send to a correspondent
> node.
>Also, why aren't these MUST (NOT) ?
There are deployment scenarios where correspondent nodes are within the
same administrative domain as the home agent. Then it is feasible and
possible that correspondent nodes do understand service selection
option and do different treatment of traffic based on that. So, In mu
opinion both MUST and MUST NOT would be too strong.
>(5) wrt to IANA's comment in the tracker, note that RFC 3775 says
> "Future values of the Option Type can be allocated using Standards
> Action or IESG Approval [10]."
>so the IESG *can* approve this as Informational.
Yes.
>(6) A personal comment is that this proposal specifically allows
>for the creation of walled gardens in service provision. That's
>something an IAB workshop warned about some years ago
>(RFC 3002 section 4.2), although mainly with respect to network
>provision. The community might want to consider whether there's a
>deeper issue than just the technical merit of this draft.
Well.. that is of course possible if some operator wants to do so.
Cheers,
Jouni
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:23 AM
> To: General Area Review Team
> Cc: Korhonen, Jouni /TeliaSonera Finland Oyj; Nilsson, Ulf
> S.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jari Arkko
> Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-korhonen-mip6-service-04.txt
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
