Subject: Re: [Mipshop] WG last call on FMIPv6 for 3G CDMA networks

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:10:49 -0700

Hello,

We have received no comments on this document. In fact there was no
one responding to the WG last call. We can't progress this document
to the IESG without explicit support.

I am extending the WG last call to Oct 22nd. Please review the
document. If you have no comments and support advancing this document,
please send an email supporting advancing this document.

Vijay

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> Hello folks,
> 
> This is to announce a working group last call for 
> draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh-03.txt. You can find the document at the 
> following URL.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh-03.txt
> 
> The last call expires on October 3 2007.
> 
> The intended status for this document is Informational.
> 
> Please post any issues or comments on this document to the MIPSHOP WG 
> mailing list. In case you have reviewed the document and found no 
> issues, please send an email saying you support advancing this document.
> 
> Vijay
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: Frank Xia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:18:58 -0500

Please go ahead.

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:36:25 +0900

Hello Frank,

> Please go ahead.

I presume this as a positive response... Thanks for your support.
-- 
Hidetoshi

---

From: Ashutosh Dutta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:38:14 -0400

Vijay, Yokota-san,
                   Please find some overall general comments on this draft.

Thanks
Ashutosh

Overall General Comments:

- There are few 3G related terminologies that could be described early 
on in the terminology section, (e.g., Pilot Sets, ANID, System ID, 
Network ID, PZID)

- Section 5 briefly describes the applicability of predictive mode and 
reactive mode for cellular networks. Providing little more details about 
how mobility in cellular networks is different than WiFi networks may 
help since there is already an RFC covering fast-handover in 802.11 (RFC 
4260) networks. It may also be a good idea to make a reference to RFC 
4260 (fast handover between WiFi networks)to create a motivation for 
FMIPv6 for cellular networks (CDMA) and describe the difference.

- In page 13, RFC 2472 could be cited when it says that MN should not 
perform DAD in step “e”.

- Step "f" in page 13 may need to restructured.

- Attachment procedure (g) in proactive case in figure 2 and attachment 
procedure (e) in reactive case in figure 4 are probably same. The 
document suggests that (g-3) to (g-9) are omitted during the initial 
boot-strapping procedure. Does the same thing apply to attachment 
procedure (e) in reactive scenario? Although step “e” in figure 4 is not 
completely spelt out like procedure “g” in figure 3.

- Does Network Controlled Handover (Section 5.3) fall under proactive or 
reactive? It appears to be proactive, but that should be spelt out somehow.

- Comment about step g (network attachment) in section 5.3 (figure 5) is 
same as previous one

- In Section 5.3, step e, NAR MAY buffer (omit the extra s)

- Conclusions: The sentence - By introducing fast handover, not only are 
more packets saved which otherwise …. Could be reworded.

Thanks
Ashutosh

---

From: "Ved Kafle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:02:04 +0900

Yokota-san,

Please find some comments in the attached file. Comments start with VK>
tags.

-- Ved Kafle

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 3:11 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] WG last call on FMIPv6 for 3G CDMA networks

Hello,

We have received no comments on this document. In fact there was no one
responding to the WG last call. We can't progress this document to the IESG
without explicit support.

I am extending the WG last call to Oct 22nd. Please review the document. If
you have no comments and support advancing this document, please send an
email supporting advancing this document.

Vijay

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:57:54 +0900

Hello Ashutosh-san,

I appreciate your valuable comments, which will be reflected in the 
document. Please see inline (one question):

> on in the terminology section, (e.g., Pilot Sets, ANID, System ID, 

Thanks. Terminology section should be more populated.

> FMIPv6 for cellular networks (CDMA) and describe the difference.

The difference that should be addressed is that a 3G system uses 
specific identifiers/information for the mobile and the base station, 
which are different from something like MAC address. L2 attach procedure 
is quite a bit different, although it is not tightly coupled with FMIP 
operations. These difference should be more clarified.

> - In page 13, RFC 2472 could be cited when it says that MN should not 

Since 3GPP2 also refers to RFC2472, this I-D should do it as well.

> - Step "f" in page 13 may need to restructured.

More explanation is needed? Could you elaborate on it a bit more, please?

> completely spelt out like procedure “g” in figure 3.

This is a valid comment and should be reflected in the document. One 
scenario that can be considered, however, is that in the reactive mode, 
the NCoA may not be obtained in the previous link, but in the new link. 
If this is the case, the RA will be needed to configure the NCoA in the 
new link. Otherwise, the above argument holds true.

> reactive? It appears to be proactive, but that should be spelt out somehow.

If the fast handover procedure takes full advantage of the assistance of 
the network, it should be the proactive mode. This should be spelt out.

> - Comment about step g (network attachment) in section 5.3 (figure 5) is 

Yes.

> - In Section 5.3, step e, NAR MAY buffer (omit the extra s)

That's right.

> more packets saved which otherwise …. Could be reworded.

Will review it...

Thanks a lot!
-- 
Hidetoshi

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:03:37 +0900

Hello Ved,

I greatly appreciate your review and suggestions. Since there are so 
many comments, I can't respond to them one by one in the mail, but I 
will definitely reflect them in the revised doc.

Thanks a lot!
-- 
Hidetoshi

---

From: Ashutosh Dutta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:49:20 -0400

Dear Yokota-san,
                  This is a suggested minor modification. I was 
suggesting to reword the sentence little bit, something like.

(f) The MN sends the Fast Binding Update (FBU) to the NAR either as a 
separate message or
being encapsulated by the Fast Neighbor Advertisement (FNA).

Thanks
Ashutosh

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:11:57 +0900

Dear Ashutosh-san,

> being encapsulated by the Fast Neighbor Advertisement (FNA).

I see. Thanks for your text proposal. I will revise the sentence as the 
above.

Best regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:21:09 -0700

The WG last call on this document has concluded. I think there is
now sufficient interest in this document to progress it. Once a
new version is available that address comments raised during the
WG last call, the document will be sent to the IESG for publication.

Vijay