Hi, May I have some comments on the draft-premec-netlmm-bulk-re-registration-03? It seems to me the Bulk registration Flag (B) are applied in two different cases: Case 1: The 'B' bit is used for requesting to extend lifetime for all MN that are part of bulk re-registration set. Case 2: The 'B' bit is used for requesting the MN to be added/removed to the bulk re-registration set. Suppose MAG requests to extend lifetime for a group of MNs and at the same time requests to remove another individual MN1 to one bulk registration set, How does the MAG set the 'B' bit in the PBU? Suppose MAG requests to bulk de-registration to LMA for a group of MNs by set 'B' to zero and at the same time requests to add another individual MN to one bulk registration set, How does the MAG set the 'B' bit in the PBU? Suppose MAG request to extend lifetime for one group of MNs and end lifetime for another group of MNs, how does the MAG set the 'B' bit in the PBU? Suppose MAG requests to extend lifetime for a group of MNs and at the same time requests to add another individual MN to one bulk registration set by sending PBU to LMA, how does LMA distinguish 'B' bit used for two different cases? If one PBU is sent to LMA with 'B' bit set to zero and group ID set to zero, non-zero MN HNP option included, how does LMA distinguish this PBU as one message used for removing MN from one bulk re-registration set or one message used for normal PBU? Therefore I am a little confused with the real purpose of 'B' bit in the PBU. Is it enough for defining only 'B' bit in the PBU? Is it necessary to define one more bit to indicate whether bulk re-registration is supported if 'B' is only used for adding or removing MN from one bulk re-registration set? or we constrain the solution scope into only some of scenarios? What am I missing? Who would like to clarify this to me? Thanks a lot! Regards! -Qin ----- Original Message ----- From: "jouni korhonen" <jouni.nospam at gmail.com> To: "Rajeev Koodli" <rkoodli at starentnetworks.com>; <netext at ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call to adoptID:draft-premec-netlmm-bulk-re-registration-03.txt as WG doc > +1 > > Cheers, > Jouni > > On Oct 21, 2009, at 3:49 PM, <teemu.savolainen at nokia.com> <teemu.savolainen at nokia.com > > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> As do I, >> >> Best regards, >> >> Teemu >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: netext-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces at ietf.org] >>> On Behalf Of ext Xiangsong Cui >>> Sent: 19 October, 2009 04:35 >>> To: Koodli, Rajeev; netext at ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call to adopt >>> ID:draft-premec-netlmm-bulk-re-registration-03.txt as WG doc >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I support the adoption of this draft as a WG document. >>> >>> Regards >>> Xiangsong >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli at starentnetworks.com> >>> To: <netext at ietf.org> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:02 PM >>> Subject: [netext] Consensus call to adopt >>> ID:draft-premec-netlmm-bulk-re-registration-03.txt as WG doc >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> One of the Netext WG items is: >>> >>> Dec 2009 Submit Bulk Refresh to IESG for publication as a >>> Proposed Standard RFC >>> >>> At the last IETF meeting, there was agreement to use >>> draft-premec-netlmm-bulk-re-registration-02.txt as the >>> baseline document for the above item. >>> >>> This document has been revised to version 03 in which the >>> Group ID proposal outlined in >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gundavelli-netext-mn-groupid-option-01 >>> has been merged based on author's agreement. >>> >>> This is a consensus call for adoption of >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-premec-netlmm-bulk-re- >>> registration-03 >>> as the WG document. >>> >>> Please respond by October 21. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -Rajeev >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ----------------- >>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> netext mailing list >>>> netext at ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> netext mailing list >>> netext at ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> netext mailing list >> netext at ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.