Okay, many thanks to your valuable review. Regards! -Qin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elwyn Davies" <[email protected]> To: "Qin Wu" <[email protected]> Cc: "General Area Review Team" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07
> Hi, Qin. > > Fine - I think all will be good from my point of view if you say a few > words about linking the MAGs as per your last response belwow. > > Cheers, > Elwyn > > On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 19:47 +0800, Qin Wu wrote: >> Hi, Elwyn: >> Thank for your followup comments, please see my replies inline. >> >> Regards! >> -Qin >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Elwyn Davies" <[email protected]> >> To: "Qin Wu" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "General Area Review Team" <[email protected]>; >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:58 PM >> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07 >> >> >> > Hi, Qin. >> > >> > Thanks for your quick reponse.. some comments in line (I have deleted >> > the bits agreed), >> > >> > /Elwyn >> > >> > On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 12:53 +0800, Qin Wu wrote: >> >> Hi,Elwyn: >> >> Thank for your valuable review. please see our replies below. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Elwyn Davies" <[email protected]> >> >> To: "General Area Review Team" <[email protected]> >> >> Cc: <[email protected]> >> >> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:06 PM >> >> Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07 >> >> >> >> >> >> >I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> >> > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> >> > < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> > >> >> > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd >> >> > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. >> >> > >> >> > Document: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07.txt >> >> > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies >> >> > Review Date: 2 February 2012 >> >> > IETF LC End Date: 24 January 2012 >> >> > IESG Telechat date: 16 February 2012 >> >> > >> >> > Summary: >> >> > I have a couple of queries/minor issues regarding checking whether LMA1 >> >> > and LMA2 are the same node and some hand waving over the idea of >> >> > 'localized routing setup/signaliing'. There are also a few minor nits. >> >> > Otherwise this is ready for the IESG. >> >> > >> >> > [This document missed the normal gen-art last call allocation >> >> > notification mechanism for some reason - so I didn't realize it was on >> >> > my allocation till the end of last call and as a result the review is a >> >> > bit late.] >> >> > >> >> > Major issues: >> >> > None >> >> > >> >> > Minor issues: >> >> > s5.1, para 3 and s5.2, last para: >> >> > In s5.1: >> >> >> MAG1 can verify >> >> >> whether both MAGs are under the same LMA by comparing the addresses >> >> >> of LMA1 and LMA2. >> >> > Is this guaranteed to work? Should we care? Or is this just too bad if >> >> > the LMA has multiple addresses and the two MNs have different ideas? >> >> >> >> [Qin]: In the example described in the s5.1, we don't consider one LMA >> >> has two LMA address. >> >> LMA1 and LMA2 may represent two different mobility entities identified by >> >> LMA1 adress and LMA2 adress respectively. >> >> If LMA1 address is LMA2 address, this just indicate LMA1 and LMA2 are the >> >> same mobility entity. >> >> Even one LMA have more than one LMA address, this still work since MAG >> >> can know if these LMA addresses come from >> >> the same mobility entity based on MN1 and MN2's binding update list. >> >> >> >> > However in s5.2: >> >> >> In the case where MNs share the same LMA, LR should be initiated by >> >> >> LMA1 (i.e.,LMA2) since only LMA1 knows that both MN1 and MN2 belong >> >> >> to itself by looking up the binding cache entries corresponding to >> >> >> MN1 and MN2. >> >> > I am unsure whether these two statements are talking about the same >> >> > thing - and, if so, are they contradictory? >> >> > >> >> >> >> [Qin]: No Confliction, See above. >> > >> > I think this is exactly the point: You give two different (but allegedly >> > non-conflicting ways) of doing the same thing at two places in the >> > draft. From what you say, I infer that you could do either thing in >> > both cases. If so then it would be better to give the alternatives >> > together for the first case and refer to the previous comments when the >> > second case is reached in the text. >> >> [Qin]: Good suggestion and will follow this. >> > >> >> >> >> > s5.1, last para: >> >> >> Figure 4 shows another example scenario, similar to the example >> >> >> scenario illustrated in Figure 3, LMA1 does not respond to MAG1 with >> >> >> the address of LMA2, instead setting up a localized routing path >> >> >> directly between itself and LMA2 via localized routing signaling. >> >> > I am unsure what 'localized routing signaliing' would involve. What >> >> > would the nodes do for this? Appears to involve some waving of hands. >> >> >> >> [Qin]: LMA1 and LMA2 exchange to trigger corresponding LMA to setup >> >> binding entries >> >> on the correspoding MAG for localized routing and establish localized >> >> routing path between MAG1 and MAG2. >> >> >> >> > On a slightly broader point, there are a number of places where the >> >> > phrase 'localized routing setup' (or similar) is used. It would, I >> >> > think, be useful to add a few words indicating what is thought to be >> >> > involved although actually doing it is clearly out of scope of this >> >> > document. >> >> >> >> [Qin]: Okay. >> > >> > I am afraid this doesn't really help: You say 'establish localized >> > routing path between MAG1 and MAG2'. How? Does this imply that the MAG >> > or some other component will (re-)configure the local packet routing >> > infrastructure? (Not something I would expect the MAG to be authorized >> > to do.) Or is this a matter of creating a tunnel? I think this needs to >> > be a whole lot more concrete - both ends have to be expecting the >> > packets and know what to do with them. >> >> [Qin]: Yes, your are right. Tunneling between MAG1 and MAG2 should be >> configured on both MAGs. >> As default static behavior,tunnel between MAG1 and MAG2 uses the same >> encapsulation mechanism >> as that being used for PMIP tunnel between MAG and LMA. In this case, MAG1 >> and MAG2 >> can start using the same tunneling mechanism without special configuration >> (e.g.using other >> tunnel mechanism that is uniform in the PMIP domain) on MAGs or dynamic >> tunneling negotiation between MAGs. >> but special configuration on MAGs or dynamic tunnel negotiation can overide >> the default static behavior mentioned above if they are really needed. >> >> Hope this clarifies. >> >> > Regards, >> > Elwyn >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
