Subject: [multimob] LC Comments on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:12:29 -0500

Hi Authors,

>From my previous review on Feb. 11, 2013:

How do you avoid tunnel convergence problem if there are more than one
MTMA? You have some hints in Appendix A.3, related to Fig. 8 but it is
still not clear. Please explain it here in 3.1

We discussed this in Orlando, here are excerpts from the minutes:

Behcet - But tunnel convergence is if mobile receives multiple copies
          of the same data

          JC - I am not sure I understand?

          Carlos - A single group will be linked to a single MTMA.  So cannot
          receive multiple copies in the mobile

Please add a good explanation of how the tunnel convergence is avoided in
the presence of multiple MTMAs in Section 3.1.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 03:08:35 +0200

Hi Behcet,

We did modify the text in A.3 as a result of your comment before
Orlando. Did you check that version? is it still not clear?

Basically, there may be more than one MTMA, but in this case each of
them will be associated to different contents (mcast groups), not to
different MNs, so the tunnel converge problem cannot appear.

Thanks,

Carlos

On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 17:12 -0500, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Please add a good explanation of how the tunnel convergence is avoided
> in the presence of multiple MTMAs in Section 3.1.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> _______________________________________________
> multimob mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:45:56 -0500

Hi Carlos,

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]
> wrote:

> Orlando. Did you check that version? is it still not clear?
The comment was to explain this important issue in the main text, e.g. Sec.
3.1.

That said, I am OK with Dirk's comments. That is going to resolve the issue.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:30:35 +0200

Hi Behcet,

OK, thanks.

Carlos

On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 10:45 -0500, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>         Hi Behcet,
>         
> The comment was to explain this important issue in the main text, e.g.
> Sec. 3.1.
>