Re: TSVDIR Review for draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dear Marco,

Thanks for your response.

2011/5/2 Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Dear Yoshifumi,
>
> thanks a lot for your review. Please find 2 comments inline.
>
> Yoshifumi Nishida wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>> I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area
>> directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These
>> comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but
>> are copied to the document's authors for their information and to
>> allow them to address any issues raised. The authors should consider
>> this review together with any other last-call comments they
>> receive. Please always CC tsv-dir@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward
>> this review.
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> This draft describes the problem space for localized routing in PMIPv6,
>> which supports direct communication between MAGs for MN and CN.
>> This draft is basically ready for publication and I couldn't
>> find any transport related issues in the draft.
>>
>> Minor comments:
>>
>> Would it be better to mention error detection and fallback function in
>> Functional Requirements? It would be useful and helpful to fall back
>> to normal routing when something happens.
>>
>
> I agree that the solution must provide means to handle such error cases
> and to step back to non-optimized routing in case there is need.
> I see these as non-functional requirements, whereas section 4 is about
> functional
> requirements only. We could add a functional requirement to 'terminate'
> localized routing. Example for reasons doing this could be the error
> case you mention. Does this sound ok?

Yes. That works for me.

>> I believe localize routing is very useful in most cases. However, I think
>> there will be the cases where we had better avoid localized routing,
>> such as a case where there are some restrictions (policy, network quality
>> or configuration, etc) in communications between MAGs.
>> It might be better to address having some kind of control to enable
>> localized routing in Functional Requirements in addition to checking
>> source and destination addresses.
>>
> Section 4, which covers the functional requirements, has a new item listed
> about enforcement of operator policies to control localized routing. I think
> that covers your comment.

I've checked the new item and I think it covers the comments.

Thanks,
--
Yoshifumi Nishida
nishida@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]