[netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-wifi-epc-eap-attributes-06

Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com> Mon, 17 March 2014 21:48 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:48:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA5F1T1+8wwZaiC2wyVoe+eZZo03doFDddsA15rb7qBMurCGng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>
To: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013cba625b488b04f4d461e6"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/XTBz0j87WWOCaHMQJ0_8DN5zQUM
Cc: draft-ietf-netext-wifi-epc-eap-attributes@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-wifi-epc-eap-attributes-06
Precedence: list

Hello,

A few comments following my review of this I-D:

1. A lot of the 3GPP concepts are covered in this document. And there is
not enough explanation of things like the APN etc. I would recommend
referencing RFC6459 (Secs 2, 3 and 4) for a better overview of APNs, PDP
contexts etc.

2. It is not clear as to which EAP messages would include the attributes
such as AT_VIRTUAL_NETWORK_ID or AT_HANDOVER_INDICATION. Would be easier
for implementers if it was clearly spelled out in a message flow.

3. The attributes to co-relate sessions when moving between 3/4G networks
and WiFi no doubt are useful. But I am not sure if this is sufficient to
enable seamless mobility between these disparate networks. Maybe it would
be useful to clarify that these attributes are required in the context of
an overall 3/4G<->WiFi mobility design.

4. The following statement in Sec 5.3 is not clear as to its intent and the
outcome : "For Multiple PDN Connections only, a Mobile Node uses this
attribute
   to indicate whether it wishes the connectivity type to be Non-
   Seamless WLAN Offload or EPC."

5. Lastly I am wondering if it is worth trying to solve multiple problems
such as APN indication, Mobility between networks and Simultaneous
connections to different APNs in this I-D. I see the APN indication and
simulatenous connections to different APNs as something that would be
required in WiFI networks. Maybe the I-D would be simplified if it did not
tackle the seamless mobility aspect and drop the associated attributes
proposed.

-Raj

-- 
Basavaraj Patil

[netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-wifi-ep… Basavaraj Patil
[netext] Fwd: FW: Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netex… Rajeev Koodli
Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-wif… Basavaraj Patil
Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-wif… Rajeev Koodli
Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-wif… Basavaraj Patil