Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC & telechat review of draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-07.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 09:14:07 +1300

Due to time-compression this is both a Last Call and pre-telechat review.

    Brian

---

From: jouni korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:36:20 +0300

Hi Brian,

Thank you for the review. Regarding the issues see inline:

>
>1. There is no discussion of using Service Location Protocol (RFC 2165).
>Maybe it is unsuitable, but that should be explained if so.

SLP has never been brought up in any discussion regarding the I-D or LMA discovery in forums I am familiar with. There are many other protocols out there that could be used for discovery purposes but we are not describing their possible use or why they did not get selected as a solution proposal in this I-D. I do not see any reason to mention SLP within the context of this I-D.

>2. There is no discussion of whether the chosen solution should preferably
>return an IP address or an FQDN. Since there is a general architectural
>recommendation to use FQDNs (RFC 1958) this draft should, IMHO, either
>follow that recommendation or give a good reason why not.

Good point. I would be fine to reword the Section 5 last paragraph as:

   ...
   heterogeneous environments.  Therefore, using AAA based LMA discovery
   solutions are recommended by this document. Furthermore, following the
   guidance in Section 4.1 of [RFC1958] the use of FQDNs should be preferred
   over IP addresses in the context of AAA based LMA discovery solutions.

- Jouni

On Oct 16, 2010, at 11:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> <draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-07-carpenter.txt>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:27:22 +1300

Hi Jouni,

SLP often seems to be forgotten, but it was designed for this
sort of use, as far as I can see. I've also been told (and I
don't know if this is true) that SLP code is present in many systems,
although normally used for printer discovery.

However, perhaps the real gap in the draft is that you don't explain
where the list of candidate solutions comes from. Maybe you can add
another sentence in the Introduction along the lines of

The approaches discussed do not include all possible discovery mechanisms,
but are limited to those considered to fit most simply into the PMIPv6
environment.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: jouni korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:14:05 +0300

Hi Brian,

> where the list of candidate solutions comes from. Maybe you can add

Good point. Sometimes we expect people to be familiar with all the history related to some topic ;)

> but are limited to those considered to fit most simply into the PMIPv6

Thanks. The above text looks good and I am fine adding it.

- Jouni