draft-ietf-seamoby-ctp-09.txt submitted to the Internet Drafts directory and ready for review

Allison,

John Loughney, the editor of the CTP draft, submitted
draft-ietf-seamoby-ctp-09.txt to the Internet Drafts directory. The draft is
now ready for AD Review, IESG Review and publication as an Experimental RFC.
The draft should appear in the directory shortly.

In response to the AD review comments on draft 08, the WG made the following
changes in the document, reflected in the 09 draft:

1) Comment: transport protocol is vaguely specified, need a transport
protocol for interrouter signaling that supports congestion control.

Response: The WG has decided to require SCTP as the transport protocol for
interoperability between routers, while also allowing experimentation with
other protocols for those who are interested in determining whether SCTP is
indeed the optimal protocol for this purpose. Similarly, the WG has decided
to require ICMP for interoperability on the host to router signaling with
exponential backoff for congestion control, and also allow experimentation
with other protocols for those who are interested. There was some interest
in the WG in leaving the question of the optimal transport somewhat open for
experimentation until standardization is started on the protocol.

2) Comment: MLD example context in Appendix B is not realistic, since MLD
will not be used by 3G wireless protocols anyway. Is there really any use
for context transfer?

Response: Draft 09 removes any reference to 3G protocols, and instead refers
to other low data rate protocols, such as Bluetooth, that might use an MLD
context transfer. In addition, the new text points out that the Seamoby WG
was not chartered to do specific context design, and so has had to reject
many proposals for specific contexts brought to the WG over the years. The
new text also sites a few examples of contexts for which designs are in
progress and proprietary context transfer protocols used in products as
cases where a standardized interoperable context transfer protocol might be
useful.

In addition to these comments, there have been a few other minor changes to
tighten up the design (for example, the addition of a protocol version
number in all messages).

Finally, the Discuss comment on draft-ietf-card-protocol-06.txt (which
actually applies to both Seamoby drafts) by Ted Hardie and Thomas Narton,
questioning the permanent assignment of scarce port and ICMP type number
resources to the experimental Seamoby protocols, has been addressed by
having both Seamoby protocols share an SCTP port and ICMP type number. The
SCTP PPI and ICMP code are used to distinguish whether the message is for
CARD or CTP. Because the WG is asking IANA to perform actions for both
protocols, a new WG draft, draft-ietf-seamoby-iana-00.txt, contains the
instructions to IANA from Seamoby, rather than having the instructions in
the individual drafts.

The CTP Issues page is at
http://danforsberg.info:8080/draft-ietf-seamoby-ctp/ in case you would like
to browse the issues, all issues are now Closed.

Please let me know if you have any questions on the draft.

                               jak