Subject: [NSIS] Review of draft-ietf-nsis-applicability-mobility-signaling-09.txt

From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:57:47 +0100

Dear all,

Here is my review of draft-ietf-nsis-applicability-mobility-signaling-09.txt.

My comments:
- Structure of the draft: 
  - Section 3 reads "Problem Statement" but does cover problem statement
    and NSIS solutions. I was confused as it mixes two different things.
	I would propose to either rename the chapter or to split problems
	and solutions. Or put solutions to section 4 only.
  - The focus of the document is set to QoS NSLP only. However, this is
    not explicitly stated, nor can it be the sole intent of this document
	to focus to the QoS NSLP only. The NATFW NSLP folks also need to 
	deliver their input ;)
  - It is probably good to split the solutions part in NTLP and NSLP
    specific sections. This would answer a) what NTLP can do, b) 
	what each of the NSLPs can do.
- Section 5: interaction with MIPv4/MIPv6
  - does this section consider all the other vanillas of mobile IP?
  - does this section also consider other mobility schemes?
  - Do we have any implementation (and/or deployment) experiences with 
    NSIS and mobile IP?
- Section 6: Why is there a section about futher studies? I do know why,
  but the text is not very clear about this.

Speaking as NATFW NSLP guy: I would like to have a discussion at the IETF
meeting to discuss the impact of mobility to the NATFW NSLP. We can do
this in one of the breaks or in the evening.

  Martin
  
[email-masked]   <== NEW ADDRESS

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 
_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: Takako Sanda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:26:29 +0900

Dear Martin,

Thank you for your useful comments.
Please see my comments in line.

cheers,
Takako

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:57:47 +0100

> 	and solutions. Or put solutions to section 4 only.

I see. 

> 	to focus to the QoS NSLP only. The NATFW NSLP folks also need to 

OK. we are loking forward to input from NATFW people ;-)

> 	what each of the NSLPs can do.

Which section are you pointing out? Section4?

>   - does this section also consider other mobility schemes?

This section only covers MIPv4/v6 triangular route cases, especially
concentrates on tunneling operation. And this does not cover any other
MIP related operations discussed in other WGs such as MEXT, MIPSHOP,
MOBOPTS, NetLmm ...
As far as I remember, other MIP related operations than MIPv4/v6
tunneling was decided not to shown in detail, and only mentioned in
Further Study part.
Do you have any specific topics should be explained in main part (not in
Further Study)?

>   - Do we have any implementation (and/or deployment) experiences with 

I guess some universities have.

>   but the text is not very clear about this.

Can you point out which section (part) text is not clear?

> this in one of the breaks or in the evening.

Can you suggest possible time slots? ;-)

-- 
Takako Sanda <[email-masked]>