Re: [MEXT] About the flow binding charter item

[arno at natisbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard)]

Hi,

marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es> writes:

> 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

Maybe it would be easier to define both terms before asking for an
opinion. I think the whole discussion started because people did not
agree on the definitions of "policy" and "rule".

> 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.

I don't see any specific scenario in which it would be useful for the HA
to influence the MN on flow binding. So I am in favour of keeping
current focus on the MN to HA side. The reverse direction could be
treated in external documents and if there are useful use cases and
momentum, that scenario could be reconsidered later.

For the HA@ question, I don't see what you have in mind. Usually, the MN
has a single address for the HA. Are you considering the ability for the
HA to be accessible at various addresses by the MN? If that is the case,
I think working on the flow binding betwenn CoAs (and possibly HoA via
RO bypass case) is the thing to do.

Cheers,

a+