[NSIS] new GIMPS version

["Hancock, Robert" <robert.hancock at roke.co.uk>]

Dear all,

There is a new version of the GIMPS draft just in time (OK, not really 
in time,
but I plead excessive viral computer fun as a distraction...) for the 
interim.
Catch it now at http://nsis.srmr.co.uk/draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-02.txt.

The change log in 9.1 summarises what has changed since the -01 version.

We've been asked to indicate how the early review comments have been
taken into account in this version. Most of the details are in the 
change log,
so I'll just provide some pointers at the end of this mail.

Happy reading!

Robert H.

Early Review Comment Resolution:

From Alex (see http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/nsis/IETF59/nsis-zinin-ietf59.ppt)
Q:  Why per-flow routing info in NTLP?
A:  More explanation added at end of 4.1.1
Q:  Suggests flow based routing?
A:  This is a misunderstanding; in any case, related developments have 
changed the text (see change number 6)

From Dave (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis/current/msg03809.html)
Q: Flow definition excludes multicast, splitting
A: Definitions modified, see change number 1
Q: How do you handle not-on-path proxies
A: We don't - clarified proxy definition in 3.2
Q: Why a hop count rather than a VIA header?
A: The rationale is in the mailing list archive for March; we haven't 
put this in the document in the interest of brevity. (However, there is 
improved text on loop handling, see change number 8)
Q: The D-mode messages have to follow the data flow
A: Yes, existing text on the subject has been gathered (from the rest of 
the document) into section 5.3
Q: Does having GIMPS do NAT traversal hijack signaling application role?
A: This is still open for discussion. The text in section 6.3 is clear 
on this. It needs discussion with the NATFW people (i.e. it is not just 
a GIMPS issue); at the moment, the NATFW NSLP regards handling NAT 
traversal aspects of non-NATFW NSLPs as out of scope, so the boundary is 
consistent
Q: Tunneling nit
A: Text in 6.4 adjusted accordingly
Q: Does 8.2 really rule out raw-IP?
A: The text in 8.2 on the subject has been expanded to say why.
Q: Aggregation is per-interface, not per-node
A: Text in 8.4 on aggregation handling adjusted accordingly

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
nsis at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis