Hi Hesham, See inline. Regards Conny Hesham Soliman wrote:
Hi Conny,Your draft is only considering the binary flow descriptors and I see no reason for this limitation. It has previously been suggested that your draft only should handle the transfer and operation of flow descriptors. Specific flow descriptor handling should be put in a separate draft.We need the comments now, not after the document is updated :). This is WGLC and we're updating the document as a result of reviews.
To be more specific. In case of ASCII format there is no need for the FID and FID-PRI fields in Figure 2. They are only used for the binary flow descriptors. Besides this all option length fields indicates the length of the option in 1-octet unit, not 8-octet units.
The Binding Reference sub-option (section 4.2.1), the Flow Description sub-option (section 4.2.2) and the Flow Identification Summary option (section 4.3) are binary specific things and should be taken care of by that draft, they are not needed for the ASCII format.
Making these changes, and perhaps some minor modifications related to these changes, would make the draft look much better. I believe it's doable.
There is a draft making the case for HA to MN initiated flow bindings, but this is a separate discussion from the one above.The bidirectionality issue was discussed and it was decided that there is no case for it. This was sent to the list by the chairs. So we won't be adding this to the draft.
Hesham On 20/10/09 7:25 AM, "Conny Larsson" <conny.larsson at ericsson.com> wrote:Hi, Comments (a detailed review will be done when the draft has been updated) There has been a lengthy discussion on the mailing list regarding support for bidirectional transfer of flow descriptors. A number of arguments have been stated both in favor of bidirectional transfer and against it. I'm in favor of adding support for bidirectional transfer and believe it should be added according to what has previously been agreed in the WG charter. There has also been a discussion about support for binary and ASCII flow descriptors. The draft is currently written only to fit the binary format. I see no reason for this approach. The draft could easily be changed to fit both formats. I see no reason for draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-03 to be forwarded to IESG before the above issues have been fixed. Regards Conny Laganier, Julien wrote:Folks, Hereby we're starting a two weeks WGLC on our "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and NEMO Basic Support" document, available at the following URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-03> Please review the specification, post your comments to the mailing list, and state whether or not you think the document is ready to be forwarded to IESG before 2009-10-20 6:00PM PST.Thank you for your support. --julien & marcelo, MEXT chairs_______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext