Ok. I'll replace the text with the text that you proposed. Thanks. :) - Best regards, Heejin.
------- Original Message ------- Sender : Jari Arkko<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date : 2008-04-10 18:32 (GMT+09:00) Title : Re: Revision results of hiopt document Oops, I missed the response. I have updated the RFC Editor notes per the below text. But I did keep my text proposal for 4.1 because I felt we needed to state something about choosing the first applicable result. Jari Heejin Jang kirjoitti: > Hi Shuresh. > > Thanks for your quick and kind reply. > Please see the inline answer. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 8:12 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: Revision results of hiopt document >> >> Hi Heejin, >> I have read the latest revision of the document. It looks >> very good. >> It has addressed all my comments from -11. >> >> New Comments >> ============ >> >> * Precedence: The following pieces of text are potentially conflicting >> >> Section 4.3: The provided multiple options SHOULD be listed >> in order of >> preference. multiple sub-options also SHOULD be listed in order of >> preference within a single option. >> >> Section 4.1: When provided with more than one Home Network >> Information options having the different id-types or multiple >> sub-options for the same id-type, the mobile node is required >> to have a selection mechanism to determine which one to use >> for establishing a Mobile IPv6 session. >> >> I think it is better to change section 4.1 to use the same >> algorithm specified in 4.3 >> > > Ok. That part in Section 4.1 will be changed as below. > > New> > > When provided with more than one Home Network Information options > having the different id-types or multiple sub-options for the same id-type, > the mobile node SHOULD choose the information to use for establishing a > Mobile IPv6 session according to preference order. > > >> * There is also some new text added that I would like to >> comment upon. >> It looks like you have added support for DSMIPv6 in this >> document. I am fine with that, but I am confused as to why >> you would use a new option to carry BOTH IPv6 and IPv4 >> addresses when there is already an option to carry an IPv6 >> address for a HA. Isn't it simpler to just add an option for >> an IPv4 HA address? This way you can remove one conflict >> scenario where the IPv6 in sub-option 4 differs from the one >> in sub-option 3 >> > > Originally, the reason to define new sub-option for dsmip HA is to couple > its IPv4 & IPv6 addresses for the same HA with dual-stack. But I cannot > find much advantage for the coupling, and think it would be better > to follow your suggestion. Then the server also provides the information > for IPv4-only HA. > > Old> > > Sec 3.1.1 > > 4 A pair of IPv6 and IPv4 addresses of > dual-stacked home agent > > When the Sub-opt-code is set to 4, it MUST contain both of IPv6 and > IPv4 addresses of the dual-stacked home agent which can serve for > both Mobile IPv6 and Mobile IPv4. A 128-bit IPv6 address is followed > by a 32-bit IPv4 address in this field. > > Sec 3.2.1 > > 3 A pair of IPv6 and IPv4 addresses of > dual-stacked home agent > > The same with the above. > > New> > > Sec 3.1.1 > > 4 IPv4 home agent address > > When the Sub-opt-code is set to 4 , it MUST contain the 32-bit IPv4 > address of the home agent which is equipped with IPv4 stack only or > with dual stack. > > Sec 3.2.1 > > 3 IPv4 home agent address > > The same with the above. > > - Best regards, > Heejin. > > >> Thanks >> Suresh >> >> >> Heejin Jang wrote: >> >>> Hi, Suresh. >>> >>> I've submitted a new version of hiopt document which >>> >> reflected your comments. >> >>> The draft was modified as I proposed and you agreed >>> >> previously except >> >>> one comment as I've sent an email about it previously. >>> >>> Kindly see the attached file and let me know you agree with >>> >> all the fixes. >> >>> Thanks for your kind help. :) >>> >>> - Best regards >>> Heejin. >>> _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
