Hi
On 4/20/2013 3:20 AM, LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO wrote:
Hi Stig,
Thanks for raising this third possibility for discussion. With the two options
that I described on my mail we were trying to reflect the feedback we received
in some of the comments on the mail list and during the meeting. The objective
of the second one is to simplify the draft, reducing the complexity of the
proposal while, at the same time, opening the door to potential optimizations
that could be later specified (at the cost of more complexity).
In this way, removing the flag A mechanism procedures from the draft does not
prevent the possibility of further improvements that could be documented
separately, decoupling the main handover optimization solution documented in
the draft from future improvements (a text can be included to highlight that
specific mechanisms could be developed in the future for improving the
efficiency of the solution).
We as editors are ok in considering your proposed option 3 and working on that
if finally it is the option preferred by the WG. However, our feeling is that
including the optional mechanism in the document will increase the complexity
of the solution. If the decision is to make optional the flag A mechanism, our
personal opinion is that it would be better to remove it from the main text.
Yes, I think it would add complexity too. So I think I favor option 2
myself. But not opposed to 3 either. Basically option 2 would simplify
the draft while still offering a good solution, while option 3 would
make it more complex.
Stig
Thanks for your positive contribution,
Best regards,
Luis
-----Mensaje original-----
De: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] En nombre de
Stig Venaas
Enviado el: miércoles, 10 de abril de 2013 19:49
Para: [email protected]
Asunto: Re: [multimob] WG Poll about the inclusion or not of flag A mechanism
in draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization
Hi
I'm responding here with my personal view, and hopefully also the same as I was
saying in the meeting.
On 4/10/2013 12:49 AM, LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO wrote:
Dear all,
After the Orlando meeting discussions on the flag A mechanism
described in draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-02 for
mitigating the internal signaling within the network in case of
reactive handover, we would like to consult WG members about your preference:
Option 1.- To include the flag A mechanism as an integral (and
mandatory) part of the solution, as described in the draft today.
Option 2.- To consider the flag A mechanism as an option to reduce
signaling in the core, then removing the reference to this mechanism
from the draft. The final document would consider that the LMA always
queries the pMAG by default, but mentioning that some mechanism
(out-of-scope) could be used to reduce this signaling (by avoiding to
query the pMAG).
Wouldn't a 3rd option be to keep it in the draft, but not make the A flag
mandatory to implement/enable? I think that may require additional work though,
because you may need to know whether the A flag is being used. Basically you
need to know that A flag not set, doesn't mean that there is no subscription
when A-flag support isn't enabled.
My concern is that the A-flag mechanism may not be worth the effort, or even
worse, if clients often switch between having multicast subscriptions and not
(basically that A is frequently often updated).
If the A flag is mostly stable, then I think it is useful.
So at least my thinking is that unless we know with some certainty what the
usage pattern is, then it is better to make it optional. If we agree on making
it optional, then the question is whether we still want it in this document
(option 2 or 3).
Hope we can get the input of several people in the group and try to figure out
what the best option is.
Stig
Thanks in advance,
Best regards,
Luis
________________________________
Luis M. Contreras
Technology / Global CTO / Telefónica
Efficiency Projects / Telefónica I+D
Distrito Telefónica, Edificio Sur 3, Planta 3
28050 Madrid
España / Spain
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede
consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico
en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send
and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
________________________________
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
