Subject: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08.txt]

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:24:05 +0200

Hi,

Following the discussion during the last meeting, I've updated the
draft. As requested by the WG, it now uses the Update Notifications for
Proxy Mobile IPv6.

Comments are welcome. I'd like to ask people that submitted an issue to
the tracker to see if you are happy with the revision (and close the
issue if that is the case).

Thanks,

Carlos

Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08.txt
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:16:51 -0700
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility
	Author(s)       : Carlos J. Bernardos
	Filename        : draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08.txt
	Pages           : 19
	Date            : 2013-10-21

Abstract:
   Proxy Mobile IPv6 allows a mobile node to connect to the same Proxy
   Mobile IPv6 domain through different interfaces.  This document
   describes extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol that are
   required to support network based flow mobility over multiple
   physical interfaces.

   The extensions described in this document consist on the operations
   performed by the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway
   to manage the prefixes assigned to the different interfaces of the
   mobile node, as well as how the forwarding policies are handled by
   the network to ensure consistent flow mobility management.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
netext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

---

From: "Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:30:33 +0000

Hi Carlos,

>draft. As requested by the WG, it now uses the Update Notifications for

Hmm? I don't recall any discussion on this..Perhaps I missed the
response(s) to my email.
We need to discuss this :)

-Rajeev

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:16:59 +0000

Hi Carlos/Rajeev:

I agree, we did not resolve this issue one way or the other.

How about the following ?

We can still the keep the FMI message, its use and the text in the spec.
No changes are needed.  But, under the wrappers, FMI message can be a UPN
message with a NR code of "FMI". So, in the format section, we point to
the UPN message.

Otherwise, we have to add all the considerations around security, IPSec
PAD entries, IPv4 transport, ..etc and that is not there currently in the
spec. May end up duplicating lot of text. Even for implementation, its
additional bit of text dealing with a new message type.

This has least impact on the existing text. Else, we need to revert to the
prev version.

Is this a reasonable way-forward ?

Regards
Sri

---

From: "Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 05:22:38 +0000

Right, we needed to discuss this before putting text - especially I saw no
response to my email about this after the last IETF meeting.

In particular, I am not sure about having to implement the UPN spec for
one to do FM. Let's discuss what this means; may be I don't fully follow..
Perhaps Carlos could spend some time at Vancouver on this.

It would help me if the following is shown with some text for the ID.
I don't see what the text duplication is. If the text is there for UPN, we
can re-use it.

Thanks.

-Rajeev

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:22:59 +0200

Hi Rajeev,

Apologies for not replying to your first e-mail. I added the text
because it was the agreement after the discussion we had on the issue
tracker and during the meeting. But I agree we can spend time at
Vancouver on this.

Carlos

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:18:39 +0200

Hi Rajeev,

> response to my email about this after the last IETF meeting.

BTW, I presented all the proposed changes that have been incorporated in
-07 and -08 during the Berlin meeting
(http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-netext-6.pdf).

You are specifically pointing to issue #15, brought by Pierrick a while
ago (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/15). This was
discussed before Berlin on the mailing list and I responded to the
issue. I presented the proposed changes in slide 9 of my presentation
and there was consensus on going for it. 

All the proposed changes were agreed by the WG, so as the editor of the
document I simply proceeded to apply them.

Regards,

Carlos

---

From: "Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:30:34 +0000

Carlos,

I raised the issue of FMI vs UPN right after the Berlin meeting.
As said, I may have missed any agreement on this.. But I did not see any
response to how/when this was reached (if any).

Please spend some time going on this at Vancouver.

Thanks.

-Rajeev

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:54:18 -0500

Carlos,

In addition to what Rajeev said, I had many comments.

In fact I don't remember at all any comment that asked to remove FM
messages :-).

What happened to those comments?

Regards,

Behcet

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli) <[email-masked]

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:43:14 +0200

Hi Behcet,

Your comments were also discussed during the meeting and on the mailing
list. I've edited the draft according to the WG consensus.

Please, check the new version of the draft, and if you have new
comments/issues, bring them up to the WG.

Thanks!

Carlos

On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 15:54 -0500, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>         
>         Carlos,
>         
>         >> Right, we needed to discuss this before putting text -
>         especially I saw
>         >>no
>         >> one to do FM. Let's discuss what this means; may be I don't
>         fully
>         >>follow..
>         >> I don't see what the text duplication is. If the text is
>         there for UPN,
>         >>we
>         >> can re-use it.
>         >>
>         >> Thanks.
>         >>
>         >> -Rajeev
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> >We can still the keep the FMI message, its use and the
>         text in the
>         >>spec.
>         >> >No changes are needed.  But, under the wrappers, FMI
>         message can be a
>         >>UPN
>         >> >PAD entries, IPv4 transport, ..etc and that is not there
>         currently in
>         >>the
>         >> >This has least impact on the existing text. Else, we need
>         to revert to
>         >>the
>         >> >prev version.
>         >> >
>         >> >On 10/21/13 3:30 PM, "Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)"
>         <[email-masked]>
>         >>wrote:
>         >> >
>         >> >>
>         >> >>Hi Carlos,
>         >> >>
>         >> >>
>         >> >>On 10/21/13 3:24 PM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano"
>         <[email-masked]>
>         >> >>wrote:
>         >> >>
>         >> >>>Hi,
>         >> >>>
>         >> >>>draft. As requested by the WG, it now uses the Update
>         Notifications
>         >>for
>         >> >>>Proxy Mobile IPv6.
>         >> >>
>         >> >>>Comments are welcome. I'd like to ask people that
>         submitted an issue
>         >>to