Subject: [Mipshop] Comments on draft-ietf-mipshop-transient-bce

From: "MELIA TELEMACO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:32:15 +0200

Hi Marco, all,

Please find in the following comments to your ID.
I think the document is in a good shape and it has significantly
improved since the initial version. Thanks for taking into account
comments sent offline.

Abstract change last sentence to clearly state the benefits of this ID:
"The specified extension to the Proxy Mobile
   IPv6 protocol ensures optimized forwarding of downlink as well as
   uplink packets between mobile nodes and the network infrastructure
   and avoids superfluous packet forwarding delay or even packet loss."
Suggested change:
"The specified extension to the Proxy Mobile
   IPv6 protocol ensures optimized forwarding of downlink as well as
   uplink packets between mobile nodes and the network infrastructure
   by avoiding superfluous packet forwarding delay and minimizing packet
loss."

Section 3.2.2, beginning of first paragraph.
Not sure we want to dig into this after the large discussions happening
on the Netext reflector.
It would be too dangerous to leave out of these specs make-before break
as long as we clarify the issue in Netext?

Cross commenting on Pierrick's email:
"In other words, the LMA should be the entity controlling the
transient-A state and, to avoid complex decision mechanism, MAGs should
be configured to perform late path switch by default. What do you
think?"

It is true that the specs are very flexible. Shall we loose a bit of
flexibility and gain in protocol simplicity?
Just a question for the authors.

Cheers,
Telemaco

---

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:13:30 +0200

Hi Telemaco,

thanks for your comments. Please see inline for my reply.

MELIA TELEMACO schrieb:
>    by avoiding superfluous packet forwarding delay and minimizing 
> packet loss."
>
Ok, will adopt your proposal.

> Not sure we want to dig into this after the large discussions 
> happening on the Netext reflector.
> It would be too dangerous to leave out of these specs make-before 
> break as long as we clarify the issue in Netext?
>
I don't see an issue and conflict with NetExt. Transient Binding is 
network-based and does not
depend on host involvement.

> transient-A state and, to avoid complex decision mechanism, MAGs 
> should be configured to perform late path switch by default. What do 
> you think?"
>
I see the document as specification of the mechanisms and protocol 
operation. To control
a late path switch in all dual radio handover cases or to decide on a 
case by case is
up to deployment and how it's integrated, in my opinion. I am ok with 
support for
split responsibility in controlling a late path switch (L) and entering 
an activation state
(A). I don't see we gain a lot in case we mandate only nMAG to set L and 
only
LMA to set A. But maybe there are more comments on this..

Cheers,
marco