Re: Comment on CTP-09

Hi Hannu,

Thanx for reviewing the draft. Below, comments (prefixed by "jak>>>").

Comment 1:

"3.2 MN-AR Transport

The MN-AR interface MUST implement and SHOULD use ICMP for transport of the
CTAR and CTAA messages.
  :
  :
Because ICMP contains no provisions for retransmitting packets if signaling
is lost, the CARD protocol incorporates
provisions for improving transport performance on the MN-AR interface...."

It is unclear to the reader why CARD protocol is referenced at this point?
Is the intention to imply piggybacking of CTP and CARD over this interface?
Plane provision of retransmission doesn't seem to be the motivation since
the CTP draft contains already similar retransmission enhancement to CARD:

" CTAR messages for which a response is requested which fail to elicit a
response are retransmitted.  The initial retransmission
   occurs after a CTP_REQUEST_RETRY wait period. Retransmissions MUST be
made with exponentially increasing wait intervals (doubling the
   wait each time).  CTAR messages should be retransmitted until ether a
response (which might be an error) has been obtained, or
   for CTP_RETRY_MAX seconds occurs."

In  the CARD draft, section 4.4, there is identical method provided. Hardly
the intention is to run double retransmission scheme. So, it appears that
the CTP is self-contained regarding to the retransmission and doesn't
require any implementation of CARD to be functional. Right?

Suggestion:

- either to remove the reference to CARD, or add wording to explain what is
meant by the CARD reference.


jak>>> It's a typo, sorry. I'll fix it.


Comment 2 (minor/editorial) to section 2.5.1

The MN MUST sent the sequence number to the same value for the message sent
on both pAR and nAR so pAR can determine whether to use a cached message.

change to
=> The MN MUST set the sequence number  ....

jak>>> Again, thanx. I'll fix it.

            jak