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

[<Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com>]

Sri Gundavelli wrote:

> May be Pasi/IESG can clarify on this. As I understood, he was more
> concerned on the lack of specification on the GRE tunneling
> mechanism and not specific to TLV related header, there is not much
> to specify there.

I believe moving all TLV header text to some other document would get
draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal published much faster.

This discussion thread has already revealed that the TLV format
probably isn't quite right. (For example, according to the current
text, the "Type" field has only two possible values (0 and 1 -- not
much room for future extensibility!), and the length field isn't
actually used for anything.) Also, the 'T' bit in BU seems redundant,
since neither MN nor HA actually uses the value for anything in
this specification.

I'm not objecting to keeping the TLV format in this document if the
issues are fixed, but would recommend taking small steps: get
nemo-v4traversal spec published first, and figure out TLV format
details when they're actually needed (in current nemo-v4traversal
spec, neither MN nor HA actually ever sends any TLV format packets).

Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext