Re: [MEXT] About the flow binding charter item

[Hesham Soliman <hesham at elevatemobile.com>]

>> => 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.
> 
> Frank=>I am sorry because I am the one draw the analogy :-)
> Just I said before, HA can run Flow Binding based on
> previous  MN flow binding operation. HA initiated operation
> is just complimentary to your draft which is  MN initiated.

=> But in the email you're referring to you were talking about the HA
revoking a flow binding. That's already possible today with the binding
revocation message. Rejecting/revoking something is different from
initiating the installation of a filter rule.

Hesham

> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.
> Frank=>You are right.   However,  BU/BA solution is tied to
> MN->HA way operation which seems to have some limitation
> in some scenario I tried to explain.
> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>