JinHyeock Choi wrote:
> Dear Alex
>
> Kindly find my in-line comments.
>
>>>>> IEEE 802.16 also defines a secondary management connection
>>>>> that can be used for host configuration. However support for
>>>>> secondary management connections is not mandatory. A
>>>>> transport connection has the advantage of it being used for
>>>>> host configuration as well as for user data.
>>>> Are you specifying something about the use of the management
>>>> connections? If not, take it out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not really specifying anything w.r.t the management connection.
>>> This came up during discussion with Alex Petrescu and I added it
>>> just for the sake of completeness. Within the scope of this I-D,
>>> the management connection has no relevance. I can take it out.
>>
>> Yes, the issue is that 802.16 recommends the RS/RA to happen on a
>> Secondary Management Connection (instead of on a Transport
>> Connection). Clarifications on the list suggested that probably
>> nobody uses a SMC. But that doesn't mean that the IEEE spec isn't
>> saying so.
>
> As of my knowledge, 802.16 doesn't mandate which connection to use
> for RS/RA.
Well I thought that mentioning of sl address autoconf happening on the
SMC, check citation below.
> Actually in the beginning of IPv6 over 802.16 IP CS work, we gave
> much thought on which connection to use for Neighbor Discovery
> messages such as RS/ RA or NS/ NA. (because those messages can carry
> multicast destination address and unspecified source address,
> special features are required for the connection.)
What came out of the discussion?
> Unfortunately 802.16 spec is not perfectly clear about this. While
> there are a few vague statements which may be interpreted to
> recommend the Secondary Management Connection, upon discussing with
> 802.16 & WiMAX people, we found out that neither the statements were
> written with that intention nor the actual 802.16 SS and BS were
> implemented that way. Transport Connection (especially Initial
> Service Flow for WiMAX case) is universally agreed as long as our
> experience & knowledge goes. If there is something missing or wrong,
> kindly let me know.
Look. Let's ignore WiMax for a very short moment. All we're left with
is the 802.16-2005 spec:
> IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [IETF RFC 2462] based on the
> value of a TLV tuple in REG-RSP. Establishment of IP connectivity
> shall be performed on the SS's Secondary Management Connection (see
> Table 110).
First issue is the use of SMC for RS/RA.
The second item is the value in REG-RSP. That value is equivalent to
the M-bit in RA.
Both issues can be solved directly and solely in the IETF draft, until
the IEEE spec is updated.
I agree discussion and clarification happened, at least on the list, but
its results should be documented. I agree that IEEE 802.16 may be fed
back and modified suggestions. I would like that to happen. If that
happens then some coherency is gained.
Remark we can't put deadlines on IEEE document advancement, so maybe
just hold on for a while.