Subject: [MEXT] Flow Bindings WGLC output: pre-04 version

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:05:34 +0000

Hi all,

Thanks a lot for the many detailed online reviews during the WGLC as
well as a number of reviews and suggestions received off-line.
Although the reviews allowed us to clarify a number of issues, no
significant changes had to be made to the protocol.

I have updated the draft but since I missed the deadline I posted it here:
http://www.tsirtsis.com/draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-pre_04.txt

I will post this officially as soon as the Editor starts accepting I-Ds.

Regards
George

---

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 11:07:17 +0000

I do not exactly follow you but the "0" values are already reserved
for all of these, and for FID and FID-PRI, "MUST NOT be used" is
indicated.

George

---

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:04:34 +0000

Someone pointed out to me that my e-mail below does not seem to
include the original question.

My e-mail was a response to a question sent to me personally but
somehow I managed to  respond to the mailing list.instead....well no
harm done I think.

George

---

From: Conny Larsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:37:50 +0100

Hi George,

Well the idea was that it should be allowed to use for instance the "0" 
value and this should be interpreted as "this field is not used". As of 
today it says "MUST NOT be used" but I would like it to be treated as an 
allowed value.

Regards
Conny

George Tsirtsis wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>

---

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:29:58 +0000

Hi Conny,

I updated http://www.tsirtsis.com/draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-pre_04.txt
so that all of these are now marked as "Value "0" is reserved and
SHOULD NOT be used".

This seems to be the way it is handled in other RFCs since it allows a
future document (or even an implementation that knows what it is
doing) to overwrite it.

I hope that is OK.

George

---

From: Conny Larsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:50:10 +0100

Hi George,

Yes, that sounds good. Thanks.

Another thing. I have mentioned it several times but I will bring it up 
one last time. The length of the "Option Len" field in the "Flow 
Identification Mobility" option is in 8-octets units. But RFC3775, 
section 6.2.1, defines the Mobility Option "Option Length" field as an 
"8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length in octets of the 
mobility option, not including the Option Type and Option Length fields".

Is there a reason for changing this convention, i.e. 8-octet units 
instead of octets?

Regards
Conny

---

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:18:27 +0000

I thought I had corrected this so good catch. I fixed it now in:
http://www.tsirtsis.com/draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-pre_04.txt

Thanks
George

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Conny Larsson
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Another thing. I have mentioned it several times but I will bring it up one
> last time. The length of the "Option Len" field in the "Flow Identification
> Mobility" option is in 8-octets units. But RFC3775, section 6.2.1, defines
> the Mobility Option "Option Length" field as an "8-bit unsigned integer,
> representing the length in octets of the mobility option, not including the
> Option Type and Option Length fields".
>
> Is there a reason for changing this convention, i.e. 8-octet units instead
> of octets?
>
>
> Regards
> Conny
>
> George Tsirtsis wrote:
>>
>> Hi Conny,
>>