Subject: [Mipshop] IESG evaluation - Allison Mankin's comments

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:12:18 -0400

Hi Allison, 

Thanks for the comments. Your	comment and response inline:

	Normative reference to Router Renumbering has the RFC wrong; it's 2894, not 2984.
	Almost a Discuss:
	MAP "discovery" by Router Renumbering is MAP configuration distribution, but the grafting
	of the MAP information onto the RR seems plain wrong:  RR's protocol is for instructions 
	to propagate prefixes from a boundary, not to distribute other information that routers 	can propagate in RAs.  

=> Right, and this is a behavioural extension of the protocol in addition
to the actual protocol extension.

      This extension of RR also seems inappropriate to HMIP given that 	HMIP is Experimental,   
      so it is probably best to use it manually.  Also HMIP is meant to be used with 
      quite a local domain, and RR can't ensure that the propagation will stay in  
      a low-latency, local environment.  (Stated goal of HMIP:

=> Experimental protocols extend others regularly. Also, there is no latency 
issues since this is a configuration parameter that is not in the critical
handover period. I.e. there is no continuous causal relationship between
receiving RR info and advertising the MAP option in the RA.
Anyway, given the desire to finish the spec and the lack of support
for RR I'll remove RR from HMIPv6.

Thanks,
Hesham

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:27:55 -0700

Hisham,

Thanks for the response.

> for RR I'll remove RR from HMIPv6.

The lack of support sounds like the best reason to drop the RR facet!

About your response that the latency would not be an issue because it 
would not be occurring during critical handover - my point was a little
different, but probably too terse.  I understood that RR is used during
configuration, but was noting that RR spreads information through a scope
of routed networks, and its network breadth might prove to have a mismatch
(in terms of latency) with the locality goal of the protocol.  I recall 
issues with RR on bounds.  But this is no longer a concern for HMIPv6 :)

>  Right, and this is a behavioural extension of the protocol in 
> addition

Finally, again for this draft it doesn't matter, but you and I should
agree to disagree about the idea of a "behavioural" extension of a
protocol.  I think of protocols as having narrowly scoped and
engineered purposes.  To me, if there's going to be a different
behavior, a different major service, this would call for a different
protocol.  

Allison

> 	Normative reference to Router Renumbering has the RFC wrong; it's 2894,
>  
> not 2984.
> 	Almost a Discuss:
> 	of the MAP information onto the RR seems plain wrong:  RR's protocol is
>  
> for instructions
> 	to propagate prefixes from a boundary, not to distribute other 
> information that routers 	can propagate in RAs. 
> 
>  Right, and this is a behavioural extension of the protocol in 
> addition
>  Experimental protocols extend others regularly. Also, there is no 
> latency