From nobody Tue Apr 1 06:30:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80ED61A070B; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 06:30:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eaqJ-gX_piVV; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 06:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BFC21A07A3; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 06:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.2.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140401133039.31263.44788.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 06:30:39 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multimob/f60PIcvnUXHzQXjjblk1zJXUW_k Cc: multimob mailing list , multimob chair , RFC Editor Subject: [multimob] Document Action: 'Mobile Multicast Sender Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains' to Experimental RFC (draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-09.txt) X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:30:46 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Mobile Multicast Sender Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains' (draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-09.txt) as Experimental RFC This document is the product of the Multicast Mobility Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Ted Lemon. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source/ Technical Summary: This document describes a base solution and an experimental protocol to support of mobile multicast senders in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains. Working Group Summary: The document has broad support in the working group. There was several comments on the mailing list during the working group last call. All comments have been addressed in this latest draft. We have complete consensus for progressing this document. Document Quality: The document has been thoroughly reviewed by several people in the working group and parts of the solution has recently been implemented Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Stig Venaas, multimob co-chair, Brian Haberman is the AD. From nobody Thu Apr 3 14:15:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F691A023F for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:15:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dsdkZp7Afag1 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:15:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D5EE1A01D9 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:15:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:b05c:717d:640f:de75] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:b05c:717d:640f:de75]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75F0B8094; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:15:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <533DCF54.1080805@venaas.com> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 14:15:00 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" , Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de, multimob@ietf.org References: <533095B8.8080207@venaas.com> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2DE422B244@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <5339E4CC.9040809@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> In-Reply-To: <5339E4CC.9040809@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multimob/pN378l_-lB86SA0OMCNGRjVGSPM Subject: Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 21:15:18 -0000 Hi On 3/31/2014 2:57 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote: > Hi Dirk, > > many thanks for carefully looking through the draft. Please see comments > inline. > > On 27.03.2014 16:30, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de wrote: > >> Sorry that I missed the preceding WGLC - I do think that this document >> is ready for publication. It has greatly improved since version 00 ;-) >> >> Though some (minor) nits came to my mind after re-reading: >> >> p.1. >> Updates: 5568 (if approved) => shouldn't be added 5949 since it does >> also update PFMIPv6? >> > > I don't think so. The update of 5568 is with the PrRtAdv-Messages. 5949 > does not contain such things, as there is no explicit messaging between > MAGs and the MN. Mobility Options are explicitly under the control of IANA. > >> As mentioned by others for prior versions there is still mixed usage >> of FBack, Hack, ... and FBACK, HACK, ... >> Same for PMAG/NMAG and pMAG/nMAG. >> > > Oh yes, that was in the figures ... > >> p.10ff >> "Section 3.3. Protocol Operations Specific to PFMIPv6" and Figs. 4/5 >> do include "PMAG (PAR)" and "NMAG (NAR)" - isn't it all about PMIP - >> so no relevance for AR? Otherwise I would expect a statement like that >> also a mixed scenario MIP/PMIP is in focus here ... >> I tried to find out whether this was explained in prior posts but >> didn't catch any ... sorry if I missed it! >> > > Actually the terms PAR and NAR in parenthesis are used to indicate the > correspondence with FMIP ... it does not consider mixed terms, but > should help the reader to see that this is all about the same "abstract > entities" here. > >> p.15 >> sect. 4.1.3 is on NAR, so I guess: >> of the PAR => of the NAR >> > > Yes, thanks. > >> the NAR joins the groups subscribed >> for forwarding on the tunnel link. < sounds puzzling to me >> => the NAR joins the groups the MN has subscribed >> for (which are then forwarded by PAR) via the tunnel link. < is it >> that what is meant? >> > > Yes, thanks. This is better. > >> p.21 >> number of muticast records => number of multicast records >> > > Thanks, fixed. > >> or Section 4.2 of [RFC3376]) for the => or Section 4.2 of [RFC3376] >> for the >> > > Thanks, fixed. > >> p.23 >> 5.5. Length Considerations: Number of Records and Addresses >> I understand why the maximum number of multicast address records is 72 >> or sources for MLDv2 is 89 (also given in >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3810#section-5.1.10), but I miss a >> consideration of specific limitation due to 8-bit Length format in new >> Mobility Header Multicast Option (Fig.7). >> Have I misunderstood something or isn't there a much stricter limit >> for multicast address records to (512-2-4)/(4+16) < 26 (w/o source >> addresses) ?? >> > > I guess you hit a point: By bringing back length formatting to standard > mobility options recently, we missed that this will not fill an Ethernet > packet. I don't think this matters much, but we definitely should adjust > the section on length considerations. > >> for that multicast address to their MLDv2 (IGMPv2) equivalents >> => for that multicast address to their MLDv2 (IGMPv3) equivalents >> > > Thanks, fixed. > >> Hope this helps > > Yes, it definitely does. > > We will wait for the next days to pass the call deadline and resubmit then. Thanks. Looks like these are the only outstanding issues. Thanks for having a careful look Dirk. Once you submit the new version I'll allow a couple of days for myself and others to review changes. If they look good I'll request publishing. If others have any issues, please let us know, even if passed the WGLC deadline. Stig > Thanks again & best regards, > > Thomas > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: multimob [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig >> Venaas >> Sent: Montag, 24. März 2014 21:30 >> To: multimob@ietf.org >> Subject: [multimob] Working group last call for >> draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05 >> >> This is a working group last call for >> draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05 >> >> Please state whether you think it is ready for publishing or if you >> believe there are issues with the document or that it is not ready for >> other reasons. >> >> The document has already been reviewed by several people, but it is >> still good to hear from the working group what you think. >> >> The last call ends one week from now on Monday March 31st. >> >> The draft is available at >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05 >> >> >> Stig >> >> _______________________________________________ >> multimob mailing list >> multimob@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >> >> _______________________________________________ >> multimob mailing list >> multimob@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >> > From nobody Tue Apr 22 10:30:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50741A0684 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:30:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0CGF3YgPwo8g for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:30:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B161A0215 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:30:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:8450:2cd0:75e1:9c3d] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:8450:2cd0:75e1:9c3d]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DA017FF8; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:30:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5356A713.1030906@venaas.com> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:29:55 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" , Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de, multimob@ietf.org References: <533095B8.8080207@venaas.com> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2DE422B244@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <5339E4CC.9040809@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <533DCF54.1080805@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <533DCF54.1080805@venaas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multimob/nalSaJpnt-1T72u9MNf3I52X2Tw Subject: Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:30:16 -0000 Thomas/authors, I think we're just waiting for 06 with these minor changes and we can request publication. Stig On 4/3/2014 2:15 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: > Hi > > On 3/31/2014 2:57 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote: >> Hi Dirk, >> >> many thanks for carefully looking through the draft. Please see comments >> inline. >> >> On 27.03.2014 16:30, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de wrote: >> >>> Sorry that I missed the preceding WGLC - I do think that this document >>> is ready for publication. It has greatly improved since version 00 ;-) >>> >>> Though some (minor) nits came to my mind after re-reading: >>> >>> p.1. >>> Updates: 5568 (if approved) => shouldn't be added 5949 since it does >>> also update PFMIPv6? >>> >> >> I don't think so. The update of 5568 is with the PrRtAdv-Messages. 5949 >> does not contain such things, as there is no explicit messaging between >> MAGs and the MN. Mobility Options are explicitly under the control of >> IANA. >> >>> As mentioned by others for prior versions there is still mixed usage >>> of FBack, Hack, ... and FBACK, HACK, ... >>> Same for PMAG/NMAG and pMAG/nMAG. >>> >> >> Oh yes, that was in the figures ... >> >>> p.10ff >>> "Section 3.3. Protocol Operations Specific to PFMIPv6" and Figs. 4/5 >>> do include "PMAG (PAR)" and "NMAG (NAR)" - isn't it all about PMIP - >>> so no relevance for AR? Otherwise I would expect a statement like that >>> also a mixed scenario MIP/PMIP is in focus here ... >>> I tried to find out whether this was explained in prior posts but >>> didn't catch any ... sorry if I missed it! >>> >> >> Actually the terms PAR and NAR in parenthesis are used to indicate the >> correspondence with FMIP ... it does not consider mixed terms, but >> should help the reader to see that this is all about the same "abstract >> entities" here. >> >>> p.15 >>> sect. 4.1.3 is on NAR, so I guess: >>> of the PAR => of the NAR >>> >> >> Yes, thanks. >> >>> the NAR joins the groups subscribed >>> for forwarding on the tunnel link. < sounds puzzling to me >>> => the NAR joins the groups the MN has subscribed >>> for (which are then forwarded by PAR) via the tunnel link. < is it >>> that what is meant? >>> >> >> Yes, thanks. This is better. >> >>> p.21 >>> number of muticast records => number of multicast records >>> >> >> Thanks, fixed. >> >>> or Section 4.2 of [RFC3376]) for the => or Section 4.2 of [RFC3376] >>> for the >>> >> >> Thanks, fixed. >> >>> p.23 >>> 5.5. Length Considerations: Number of Records and Addresses >>> I understand why the maximum number of multicast address records is 72 >>> or sources for MLDv2 is 89 (also given in >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3810#section-5.1.10), but I miss a >>> consideration of specific limitation due to 8-bit Length format in new >>> Mobility Header Multicast Option (Fig.7). >>> Have I misunderstood something or isn't there a much stricter limit >>> for multicast address records to (512-2-4)/(4+16) < 26 (w/o source >>> addresses) ?? >>> >> >> I guess you hit a point: By bringing back length formatting to standard >> mobility options recently, we missed that this will not fill an Ethernet >> packet. I don't think this matters much, but we definitely should adjust >> the section on length considerations. >> >>> for that multicast address to their MLDv2 (IGMPv2) equivalents >>> => for that multicast address to their MLDv2 (IGMPv3) equivalents >>> >> >> Thanks, fixed. >> >>> Hope this helps >> >> Yes, it definitely does. >> >> We will wait for the next days to pass the call deadline and resubmit >> then. > > Thanks. Looks like these are the only outstanding issues. Thanks for > having a careful look Dirk. > > Once you submit the new version I'll allow a couple of days for myself > and others to review changes. If they look good I'll request publishing. > > If others have any issues, please let us know, even if passed the WGLC > deadline. > > Stig > >> Thanks again & best regards, >> >> Thomas >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: multimob [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig >>> Venaas >>> Sent: Montag, 24. März 2014 21:30 >>> To: multimob@ietf.org >>> Subject: [multimob] Working group last call for >>> draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05 >>> >>> This is a working group last call for >>> draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05 >>> >>> Please state whether you think it is ready for publishing or if you >>> believe there are issues with the document or that it is not ready for >>> other reasons. >>> >>> The document has already been reviewed by several people, but it is >>> still good to hear from the working group what you think. >>> >>> The last call ends one week from now on Monday March 31st. >>> >>> The draft is available at >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05 >>> >>> >>> >>> Stig >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> multimob mailing list >>> multimob@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> multimob mailing list >>> multimob@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >>> >> > From nobody Tue Apr 22 11:14:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3EC51A0225 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:14:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.822 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7qXSKfTDVmng for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de (mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de [141.22.6.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 680621A06B0 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([141.22.30.74]) by mail6.is.haw-hamburg.de with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 22 Apr 2014 20:13:52 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B31A10679D7; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:13:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 25956-10; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:13:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [141.22.28.186] (unknown [141.22.28.186]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B21C10679CF; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:13:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5356B154.3030300@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:13:40 +0200 From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stig Venaas , Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de, multimob@ietf.org References: <533095B8.8080207@venaas.com> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2DE422B244@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <5339E4CC.9040809@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <533DCF54.1080805@venaas.com> <5356A713.1030906@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <5356A713.1030906@venaas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at informatik.haw-hamburg.de Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multimob/46V2LINtLehCNbs9zFmWi27PEFI Subject: Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:14:03 -0000 Hi Stig, sorry, we've been busy otherwise. We'll try to update asap. Cheers, Thomas On 22.04.2014 19:29, Stig Venaas wrote: > Thomas/authors, I think we're just waiting for 06 with these minor > changes and we can request publication. > > Stig > > On 4/3/2014 2:15 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: >> Hi >> >> On 3/31/2014 2:57 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote: >>> Hi Dirk, >>> >>> many thanks for carefully looking through the draft. Please see comments >>> inline. >>> >>> On 27.03.2014 16:30, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de wrote: >>> >>>> Sorry that I missed the preceding WGLC - I do think that this document >>>> is ready for publication. It has greatly improved since version 00 ;-) >>>> >>>> Though some (minor) nits came to my mind after re-reading: >>>> >>>> p.1. >>>> Updates: 5568 (if approved) => shouldn't be added 5949 since it does >>>> also update PFMIPv6? >>>> >>> >>> I don't think so. The update of 5568 is with the PrRtAdv-Messages. 5949 >>> does not contain such things, as there is no explicit messaging between >>> MAGs and the MN. Mobility Options are explicitly under the control of >>> IANA. >>> >>>> As mentioned by others for prior versions there is still mixed usage >>>> of FBack, Hack, ... and FBACK, HACK, ... >>>> Same for PMAG/NMAG and pMAG/nMAG. >>>> >>> >>> Oh yes, that was in the figures ... >>> >>>> p.10ff >>>> "Section 3.3. Protocol Operations Specific to PFMIPv6" and Figs. 4/5 >>>> do include "PMAG (PAR)" and "NMAG (NAR)" - isn't it all about PMIP - >>>> so no relevance for AR? Otherwise I would expect a statement like that >>>> also a mixed scenario MIP/PMIP is in focus here ... >>>> I tried to find out whether this was explained in prior posts but >>>> didn't catch any ... sorry if I missed it! >>>> >>> >>> Actually the terms PAR and NAR in parenthesis are used to indicate the >>> correspondence with FMIP ... it does not consider mixed terms, but >>> should help the reader to see that this is all about the same "abstract >>> entities" here. >>> >>>> p.15 >>>> sect. 4.1.3 is on NAR, so I guess: >>>> of the PAR => of the NAR >>>> >>> >>> Yes, thanks. >>> >>>> the NAR joins the groups subscribed >>>> for forwarding on the tunnel link. < sounds puzzling to me >>>> => the NAR joins the groups the MN has subscribed >>>> for (which are then forwarded by PAR) via the tunnel link. < is it >>>> that what is meant? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, thanks. This is better. >>> >>>> p.21 >>>> number of muticast records => number of multicast records >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, fixed. >>> >>>> or Section 4.2 of [RFC3376]) for the => or Section 4.2 of [RFC3376] >>>> for the >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, fixed. >>> >>>> p.23 >>>> 5.5. Length Considerations: Number of Records and Addresses >>>> I understand why the maximum number of multicast address records is 72 >>>> or sources for MLDv2 is 89 (also given in >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3810#section-5.1.10), but I miss a >>>> consideration of specific limitation due to 8-bit Length format in new >>>> Mobility Header Multicast Option (Fig.7). >>>> Have I misunderstood something or isn't there a much stricter limit >>>> for multicast address records to (512-2-4)/(4+16) < 26 (w/o source >>>> addresses) ?? >>>> >>> >>> I guess you hit a point: By bringing back length formatting to standard >>> mobility options recently, we missed that this will not fill an Ethernet >>> packet. I don't think this matters much, but we definitely should adjust >>> the section on length considerations. >>> >>>> for that multicast address to their MLDv2 (IGMPv2) equivalents >>>> => for that multicast address to their MLDv2 (IGMPv3) equivalents >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, fixed. >>> >>>> Hope this helps >>> >>> Yes, it definitely does. >>> >>> We will wait for the next days to pass the call deadline and resubmit >>> then. >> >> Thanks. Looks like these are the only outstanding issues. Thanks for >> having a careful look Dirk. >> >> Once you submit the new version I'll allow a couple of days for myself >> and others to review changes. If they look good I'll request publishing. >> >> If others have any issues, please let us know, even if passed the WGLC >> deadline. >> >> Stig >> >>> Thanks again & best regards, >>> >>> Thomas >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: multimob [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig >>>> Venaas >>>> Sent: Montag, 24. März 2014 21:30 >>>> To: multimob@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [multimob] Working group last call for >>>> draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05 >>>> >>>> This is a working group last call for >>>> draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05 >>>> >>>> Please state whether you think it is ready for publishing or if you >>>> believe there are issues with the document or that it is not ready for >>>> other reasons. >>>> >>>> The document has already been reviewed by several people, but it is >>>> still good to hear from the working group what you think. >>>> >>>> The last call ends one week from now on Monday March 31st. >>>> >>>> The draft is available at >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Stig >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> multimob mailing list >>>> multimob@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> multimob mailing list >>>> multimob@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >>>> >>> >> > -- Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 ° ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany ° ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 ° ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °