Subject: Re: [netext] #15: use "update notification" for FMI/FMA

From: "netext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:49:23 -0000

#15: use "update notification" for FMI/FMA

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 (apologies for not addressing this until now)

 Since draft-krishnan-netext-update-notifications became draft-ietf-netext-
 update-notifications, I'd be supportive of removing FMI/FMA and use the
 notification message to trigger PBU/PBA for flow mobility purposes. I
 think this would also help to address issue #17 (the MAG could also
 request moving a flow to the LMA, covering the MN initiated handover
 triggers documented there).

 I'd like to ask the WG opinions on this: should we keep FMI/FMA or adopt
 the use of update notifications?

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-netext-
  [email-masked]          |  [email-masked]
     Type:  enhancement              |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
Component:  pmipv6-flowmob           |     Version:
 Severity:  -                        |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/15#comment:1>
netext <http://tools.ietf.org/netext/>

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:26:54 -0600

Hi Carlos,

Here is what Suresh wrote on a similar issue:

> What are we going to do with LRI/LRA defined in RFC 6705 by Suresh himself?

Nothing :-). The LRI is not a generic notification message. It cannot be
used for other purposes than LR.

FMI also is not a generic notification message, it is quite similar to LRI
in semantics.

Regards,

Behcet

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:49 PM, netext issue tracker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Ticket URL: <
> https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/15#comment:1>
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:45:43 +0100

Hi Behcet,

So you suggest to keep using the FMI?

Carlos

On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 13:26 -0600, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> FMI also is not a generic notification message, it is quite similar to
> LRI in semantics.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:49 PM, netext issue tracker <trac
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>         Ticket URL:
>         <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/15#comment:1>

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:58:39 -0600

Yes.

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:40:30 +0000

Ack. Agree with this.

Regards
Sri

---

From: "Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:53:29 +0000

Carlos,

I am not sure about this.. I would like us to wrap up the the FM draft,
without yet another dependency (cf. Suresh's earlier email on #15). So,
yes, please keep FMI/FMA and finish the doc.

Thanks.

-Rajeev