Re: [MEXT] About the flow binding charter item

[Hesham Soliman <hesham at elevatemobile.com>]

On 21/05/09 12:43 AM, "Frank Xia" <xiayangsong at huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Marcelo
> 
> Texts are copied here for simplification:
>> 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.
> 
> IMHO, we should define operation from HA to MN.
> 
> A very simple analogy,  there is "Binding Revocation
> for IPv6 Mobility", and I think there are the same reasons
> to have ""Flow Binding Revocation for IPv6 Mobility"

=> There is nothing in common between a binding revocation message which
tells the MN that it needs to remove a binding maintained by the sender (the
HA), and a message that tells the MN to use a particular address for one or
more flows where the HA knows nothing about the conditions of the interface
associated with such address. I don't understand how one can draw the
analogy above. In one case the HA knows everything there is to know, in the
other the HA knows nothing.


> We have some details in our draft
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xia-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt.

=> It's not about creating messages, it's how they would be used. Creating
messages is easy. 

Hesham


> 
> BR
> Frank
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "marcelo bagnulo braun" <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>
> To: "mext" <mext at ietf.org>
> Cc: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko at piuha.net>; "Julien Laganier"
> <julien.laganier.ietf at googlemail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:04 AM
> Subject: [MEXT] About the flow binding charter item
> 
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> There seems to be some discrepancies about the MEXT charter item
>> regarding the work on flow bindings.
>> Since the charter is the guide for our work, it would be important to
>> clarify it, so we can have a unified interpretation of the charter.
>> Please note that what it is in the charter is not cast in stone, but
>> it seems to reflect previous consensus and we need good reasons to
>> change it.
>> 
>> So, the current charter item about flow bindings reads:
>> 
>> - A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for an exchange of
>> policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from the
>> Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the
>> Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The solution involves two
>> specifications, one for the policy format and another for its
>> transport [both Standard Track].
>> 
>> The first problem with this text is the use and interpretation of the
>> word policy. Since the policy word may have a broad interpretation.
>> it would be important to make the charter more explicit about the
>> expected work. We understand that it is the WG consensus that what
>> need to be exchanged is a solution for the exchange of flow binding
>> rules.
>> 
>> So, we understand that it would be more explicit to replace the usage
>> of the expression Flow/binding policies exchange by Flow Binding
>> rules exchange. Would that reflect with the WG interpretation?
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Regards, Julien and marcelo
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext