Hi, Jouni,
Thanks for the quick response. If I wasn't still jet-lagged, I could
remember what I was thinking when I did the review :-)
Responses inline... and I deleted stuff we already agreed on.
Spencer
1. Introduction
This specification defines the Diameter support for PMIPv6. In the
context of this specification the location of the subscriber policy
profile equals to the home Diameter server, which is also referred as
Spencer (clarity): this sentence is difficult to parse - is it saying
"In this specification, the home Diameter server, which is also referred
to as the home AAA server (HAAA), contains the subscriber policy
profile"? If it doesn't, I'm too confused to make a suggestion...
How about:
In the context of this specification the home AAA server (HAAA)
functionality is co-located with the subscriber policy profile.
Much clearer - thanks!
the home AAA server (HAAA). The NAS functionality of the MAG may be
co-located or an integral part of the MAG.
4.5. MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP
LOCAL_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED (0x0000040000000000)
Direct routing of IP packets between MNs anchored to the same MAG
is supported. When a MAG sets this bit in the MIP6-Feature-
Vector, it indicates that routing IP packets between MNs anchored
to the same MAG is supported, without reverse tunneling packets
via the LMA or requiring any Route Optimization related signaling
(e.g. the Return Routability Procedure in [RFC3775]) prior direct
routing. If this bit is unset in the returned MIP6-Feature-Vector
Spencer (clarity): I'd say "if this bit is cleared".
OK.
AVP, the HAAA does not authorize direct routing of packets between
MNs anchored to the same MAG. This policy feature SHOULD be
supported per MN and subscription basis.
Spencer (minor): it's not clear who SHOULD be supporting this feature -
who does the 2119 SHOULD apply to? I would guess it applies to the MAG,
but I'm guessing. Is this "supported on a per-MN and per-subscription
basis"? And I'm not sure why this SHOULD isn't a MUST.
"supported on a per-MN and per-subscription basis" is what the text tries
to say.
If people think it's clear enough, that's fine. I was just getting lost.
It is SHOULD as the RFC5213 does not mandate whether the local routing is
per-MN (uses MAY in RFC5213) or applies to whole MAG. Therefore, we felt
SHOULD is enough and final decision is then left for the
deployment/system.
That's fine.
Sorry for asking three questions back-to-back.
The question that may have gotten lost is "who is required to support
this?" - the MAG, or the HAAA, or both? This statement occurs in text that
describes the message flow. I'm understanding your response as saying that
the requirement applies to the MAG, but one reasonable interpretation is
that it applies to both the MAG and HAAA (since they exchange messages with
this AVP).
Suggest "The MAG SHOULD support this policy feature on a per MN and
subscription basis".
5.1. MAG-to-HAAA Interface
Whenever the MAG sends a Diameter request message to the HAAA the
User-Name AVP SHOULD contain the MN's identity. The MN identity, if
Spencer (minor): what is this SHOULD conditional on?
In case of identity hiding is applied, the User-Name can be absent.
Ah - if my understanding is correct, the text might be clearer as "Whenever
the MAG sends a Diameter request message to the HAAA and identity hiding is
not in effect, the User-Name MUST contain the MN's identity".
available, MUST be in Network Access Identifier (NAI) [RFC4282]
format. At minimum the home realm of the MN MUST be available at the
MAG when the network access authentication takes place. Otherwise
the MAG is not able to route the Diameter request messages towards
the correct HAAA. The MN identity used on the MAG-to-HAAA interface
and in the User-Name AVP MAY entirely be related to the network
access authentication, and therefore not suitable to be used as the
MN-ID mobility option value in the subsequent PBU/PBA messages. See
the related discussion on MN's identities in Section 4.6 and in
Section 5.2.1
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
