Subject: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option review

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 17:46:45 +0000

1. Rewrite the abstract. (I dislike an abstract that starts as "This
specification...".  One suggestion is to rephrase current text as follows:

"
The Local Mobility Agent in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 network is able to
provide access network and access operator specific handling or
policing of the mobile node traffic using information about the access
network to which the mobile node is attached and/or the operator of
that access network. This specification defines a mechanism and a
related mobility option for carrying the access network identifier and
the access operator identification information from the mobile access
gateway to the local mobility anchor over Proxy Mobile IPv6.
"

2. s/In many architectures, such as Service Provider WIFI access
   aggregation architectures, or WLAN integrated mobile packet core
   architectures, there is a need for the local mobility anchor
   [RFC5213] to provide differentiated services and policing to the
   mobile nodes based on the access network to which they are
   attached./ 
   Proxy mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] is considered as a solution
   for network based mobility in several types of network
   deployments. The architectures of networks such as Service provider
   WiFi access aggregation or, WLAN integrated mobile packet core are
   examples where PMIPv6 is a component of the overall
   architecture. Some of these architectures require the ability of
   the local mobility anchor (LMA) [RFC5213] to provide differentiated
   services and policing of traffic to the  mobile nodes based on the
   access network to which they are attached.

3. I would recommend deleting the terms ANDSF and PCC from the
terminology section. You have a reference to the 3GPP specs. Just
leave it at that.

4. I would also like to see the I-D stating up front that these
options are optional and not mandatory to the operation of
PMIP6. There needs to be an applicability statement.

5. Given that you are including geo-location information as an option,
the security consideration section needs to address privacy
concerns. As an example, if the user of the mobile node has somehow
indicated that his geo-location information should not be used, then
the I-D needs a way of handling it. So I would suggest addressing the
privacy issue as well in the security section.

As soon as you have addressed these comments and submitted a revised
I-D, I will forward it to the IESG.

-Raj

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:07:07 -0700

Raj: Thanks for the review.

> specification...".  One suggestion is to rephrase current text as follows:

... OK

> gateway to the local mobility anchor over Proxy Mobile IPv6.

OK

>    access network to which they are attached.

OK

> terminology section. You have a reference to the 3GPP specs. Just

OK

> PMIP6. There needs to be an applicability statement.

OK

> privacy issue as well in the security section.

Its already covered.

> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext