Vijay,

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> This is ok, but we still need some text that says, if the 
> service selection mobility option is used, it needs to appear 
> only in the initial BU and not required in the BUs sent to 
> refresh a binding.

IMO Section 4.1 mobile node considerations state this 
pretty clearly. Is that enough to be there or should it
also be under the option format description?

> >> (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.
> 
> Do we have to say "one"? For example, it might be possible to 
> provide two different services on the same Mobile IP tunnel. 
> We could leave this up to folks who might use this option.

Do you mean that we would allow zero or more services in a (P)BU
and then how the HA processes that is up to deployment?


Cheers,
        Jouni



> 
> Vijay
> 


_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to