Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review

["Giaretta, Gerardo" <gerardog at qualcomm.com>]

Hi Hesham,

I am fine with your proposal.

Gerardo

________________________________________
From: mext-bounces at ietf.org [mext-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hesham Soliman [hesham at elevatemobile.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:23 AM
To: mext at ietf.org
Cc: Pasi Eronen
Subject: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review

Folks,

Part of Pasi's review for DSMIPv6 was a comment on the lack of specification
for GRE support in the spec. He said it was vastly under-specified, no
details on the tunnelling, setting of different parts of the GRE header
...etc.

I suggested that we don't explicitly mention GRE in the spec but we keep the
TLV tunnelling format and reserve the numbers for NETLMM to specify exactly
how it will be used in a separate document. I think you would agree that
this is largely driven by NETLMM needs and we shouldn't specify the details
in MEXT. Pasi was ok with that.

Please express your opinion on this soon because Pasi's comments are the
last comments for the draft and I want to handle them by Monday at the
latest.

Please avoid discussing the merits of GRE....etc, the question is:

Are there any objections to removing explicit references to GRE while
reserving the numbers in the TLV header for it to be specified clearly in
NETLMM?

Thanks,

Hesham


_______________________________________________
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