Re: [MEXT] About the flow binding charter item

[Hesham Soliman <hesham at elevatemobile.com>]

> Second, the current charter item explicitly mentions that the
> proposed approach must support sending flow binding information from
> the MN to the HA and also from the HA to the MN. Moreover, the
> current charter talks about influencing not only the selection of the
> CoA but also the selection of the HA address. However, our current WG
> document does not supports sending information from the HA and it
> does not cover the possibility of influencing the HA address. So, one
> possible interpretation of the charter would be that the MN sends
> flow binding information to influence the CoA selection and the HA
> sends flow binding information to influence the HA address selection.
> Other interpretation is that both the MN and the HA send information
> regarding both the HA address and the CoA selection.

=> I just noticed the but about influencing the HA address selection
actually. I don't even know what that means or why it's there.

> 
> So, we would like that the WG express their opinion on both items
> mentioned above:
> 
> 1- whether we should replace Flow/binding policies exchange by Flow
> Binding rules exchange in the charter

=> Agree.

> 
> 2- whether the information should be sent from the MN to the HA only
> or it should also be sent from the HA to the MN and if the
> information exchanged in each direction should affect the CoA and/or
> the HA address.

=> As a charter, I don't think it needs to describe how something should be
solved. It should talk about _what_ needs to be solved, i.e. The problem and
not how to solve it. So I would say "exchange filter rules between the
mobile node and HA". Implicit in that statement is the use of MIP, which
should be non-controversial given the WG's role.

Hesham

> 
> Regards, Julien and marcelo
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext