Re: [MEXT] About the flow binding charter item

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>]

Arnaud Ebalard escribió:
> 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".
>   
are you suggesting we include a definition of policy or rule in the charter?
I am not sure this is the best approach.
What i would like to to have some words in the charter that are non 
controversial (in their interpretation)
I was thinking that policy was a controversial word (with multiple 
interpretations) while rule wasn't, hence the proposal to change it.

>   
> > 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. 
i don't have anything in mind (really, it is pure vacuum lately)

I am just refering to the charter as it is currently written and i want 
to understand where the WG stands on these topics.
so feel free to make any interpretation and explain what you think makes 
sense. Let's see if we can reach a common understanding of what is the 
work that we should do. that is the basic goal here.

Regards, marcelo

> 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+
>
>