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

[Hesham Soliman <hesham at elevatemobile.com>]

On 16/01/09 1:13 AM, "George Tsirtsis" <tsirtsis at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Hesham Soliman
> <hesham at elevatemobile.com> wrote:
>> Pasi mentioned in the first paragraph that he " would strongly suggest
>> moving the whole TLV header text to the separate GRE document."
>> 
> 
> GT> This makes sense to me.
> 
>> This is different from keeping the TLV header and removing the assignment of
>> GRE values.
> 
> GT> I am still trying to understand what this means in practice. If
> you keep the TLV header and remove the GRE assigned value then the
> draft will NOT have any valid Type values for the TLV header. What is
> an implementation supposed to do with that?

=> Absolutely nothing until a number is assigned in another spec.

> 
>> Two very different approaches. It's not clear to me which one
>> you are asking for.
>> 
> 
> GT> If you can clarify the above I will tell you :-)

=> Hope this helps :)

Hesham

> 
>> Hesham
>> 
>> 
>> On 16/01/09 1:02 AM, "George Tsirtsis" <tsirtsis at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> How are they different? Maybe I am missing something. The only type
>>> value defined currently on the TLV is for GRE. If you remove the GRE
>>> value, what is the TLV for?
>>> 
>>> George
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Hesham Soliman
>>> <hesham at elevatemobile.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I think what Pasi suggests makes sense and will make things easier for
>>>>> whoever defines GRE support.
>>>> 
>>>> => So are you agreeing with removing the TLV completely or with simply
>>>> removing the assignment of the GRE? They're two different things.
>>>> 
>>>> Hesham
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not assigning a number for the TLV essentially means that the TLV
>>>>> header for GRE is undefined and thus nothing needs to be said about
>>>>> it. The whole thing can then be defined in a different spec as needed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> George
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Hesham Soliman
>>>>> <hesham at elevatemobile.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would strongly suggest moving the whole TLV header text to the
>>>>>>> separate GRE document.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> => Personally, as everyone on the list knows, I was always against
>>>>>> including
>>>>>> this in the draft, I think it's a really bad idea, but obviously it's not
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> decision. So let's see what people say. I do agree with this suggestion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In particular, if you assign a number for GRE in this document,
>>>>>>> you either need to describe how it works here, or have a normative
>>>>>>> reference to the NETLMM spec.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> => My suggestion below was not to assign any numbers in the draft. It was
>>>>>> simply to have the TLV header unassigned and let someone else request the
>>>>>> assignment and describe how it's used. My ideal preference is the one
>>>>>> above
>>>>>> (remove it completely) but the suggestion below was a compromise to speed
>>>>>> things up.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hesham
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Pasi
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: ext Hesham Soliman [mailto:hesham at elevatemobile.com]
>>>>>>>> Sent: 14 January, 2009 14:23
>>>>>>>> To: mext at ietf.org
>>>>>>>> Cc: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
>>>>>>>> Subject: 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