Subject: [netext] Comments on draft-pazhyannur-netext-civic-location-ani-subopt-01

From: "Kent Leung (kleung)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 21:52:54 +0000

Hi. I believe the proposal is a good idea and would be useful. In general, the draft looks good. The scheme allows the MAG to propose the interval for location change notifications and LMA can override that value. A few comments below.

1.            Title: Typo "Acess"
2.            Sect.1: Typos - "mobiility"
3.            Sect.4: Group Identifier: need description, though obvious.
4.            The intent of the text, "then MAG behavior with respect to updating the ANI values is left to implementation choices", is to state that MAG behavior is implemented in accordance to RFC 6757 since response indicates LMA does not understand the ANI option?
5.            Is the Group ID a global value? What happens if handover happens between providers that happened to have the same adjacent group IDs?
6.            Why not two byte Group ID? 64K groups is not sufficient? It would save 4 bytes by fitting in the Reserved field. I guess it depends on how #5 is addressed.
7.            If LMA configuration changes, can LMA notify MAG about the location update interval? Since ANI option is only in PBU and PBA, the introduction of Update-Timer suboption may be useful as a "push" message. So can this be carried in Update Notification message?

Kent