Subject: [Mipshop] WG Last Call on DHCP options for ANDSF

From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:29:03 -0400

Hello,

draft-das-mipshop-andsf-dhcp-options-01.txt describes DHCP options for
discovering ANDSF network entities. ANDSF stands for Access Network
Discovery and Selection Function. It is a concept developed by 3GPP and
is used for assisting the mobile nodes in discovering various access
networks and selecting the most appropriate one based on various
factors.

This draft is a not MIPSHOP WG document. It will be standardized as an
AD-sponsored document. However, we feel that it would be useful to run a
WG last call in the MIPSHOP WG to solicit comments and get some reviews.

So, this is a two week working group last call for
draft-das-mipshop-andsf-dhcp-options. You can find the document at the
following URL.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-das-mipshop-andsf-dhcp-options-01.txt

The last call expires on August 26th 2009.

Please post any issues or comments on this document to the MIPSHOP WG
mailing list. In case you have reviewed the document and found no
issues, it would be good to know.

Vijay

---

From: Xiangsong Cui <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:44:08 +0800

Hello,

I have read the document and I have two comments.

1,  RFC3315 says "Unless otherwise noted, each option may
     appear only  in the options area of a DHCP message and may
     appear only once."
    And in the sections 4 and 5 of the draft,  it is unclear whether
    ANDSF IPv6 Address option and ANDSF Domain Name List
    option may appear in DHCP message multiple times. I suggest
    an explicit statement should be included in the document.
    (DHCPv4 options have been mentioned, multiple smaller options
     may be used)

2,  In section 3, ANDSF Domain Name List Option for DHCPv4,
     if the option payload is a domain name list, it seems each domain
     name in the list is a suboption. In the example, 
+-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 
 | XX  |26 | 7 |'e'|'x'|'a'|'m'|'p'|'l'|'e'| 3 |'c'|'o'|'m'| 0 | 
 +-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 
 | 7 |'e'|'x'|'a'|'m'|'p'|'l'|'e'| 3 |'n'|'e'|'t'| 0 | 
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 
the character "0" looks to be the boundary, is it true?

I noticed a draft, 
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-05.txt,
in the section 8, it introduces the dangers of suboptions.

For this reason, I think there is another way for the case 
of domain name list, only one domain name appears in each
option and multiple options are used to represent the domain
name list. For the same example:
 +-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 | XX  |12 | 7 |'e'|'x'|'a'|'m'|'p'|'l'|'e'| 3 |'c'|'o'|'m'|
 +-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 +-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 | XX  |12 | 7 |'e'|'x'|'a'|'m'|'p'|'l'|'e'| 3 |'n'|'e'|'t'|
 +-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Is it considerable?

Regards

Xiangsong

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:29 AM
Subject: [Mipshop] WG Last Call on DHCP options for ANDSF

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

---

From: Subir Das <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:55:40 -0400

Hello Xiangsong,
Sorry for my late reply. My answers inline.

regards,
_Subir

>    (DHCPv4 options have been mentioned, multiple smaller options
 SD> We do assume that the requesting and sending of the DHCPv6 options
         follow the rules described in RFC 3315 and is mentioned in 
Section 6.2.
         Therefore we believe that there is no need to add any 
additional statement.
     
>     name in the list is a suboption. 
      SD>  Each domain name in the list is not a suboption. It is still 
an option with
       two ANDSF servers  with a boundary.
> In the example, 
> +-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | XX  
> |26 | 7 |'e'|'x'|'a'|'m'|'p'|'l'|'e'| 3 |'c'|'o'|'m'| 0 | 
> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 7 
> |'e'|'x'|'a'|'m'|'p'|'l'|'e'| 3 |'n'|'e'|'t'| 0 | 
> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ the character 
> "0" looks to be the boundary, is it true?
   SD> Yes it is true
> For this reason, I think there is another way for the case of domain 
> name list, only one domain name appears in each
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vijay Devarapalli" 
> <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>