From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Wed Jun 29 10:25:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014A821F854B for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:25:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.499, BAYES_60=1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 214OthFyLp6p for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:25:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm25-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm25-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.228]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8531321F854A for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:25:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.66] by nm25.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jun 2011 17:25:47 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.57] by tm6.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jun 2011 17:25:47 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1057.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jun 2011 17:25:47 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 602803.23003.bm@omp1057.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 99850 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Jun 2011 17:25:47 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1309368347; bh=47DEQpj8HBSa+/TImW+5JCeuQeRkm5NMpJWZG3hSuFU=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=DlMwnAEnq0KNLBF4A/AAIXFXsKVP1aPFrqC4bCCiiOYTLYHfgoGaGGMzYD+TCSudQJCBHOp6DWF+NxxviN0/FjD6ERWIgKLTr9H/en72+ik5jsF0JlxqHiF+qNKEVtKWIHT2wrHfpHwOKjMordTnzLasf9e0McuN1SEcZNNkKyk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BR8VGt6koGrJ0TSjXslGbyzG10THQHl42xCrum4TqObej2iGHfep3cyqX0xcvsS/vCxDwqFrexJ/fRGk5HxnGdcqCXv7ZqpVjBCa9NZxSfpsvqFHOvNOpXB5gJ2SRc1MDMUWlFUxQobE/h+LVXlKW96v3jWkusdm+u6/CfGvmGQ=; X-YMail-OSG: qkhx_N0VM1m8zlKvdPBJeJJ00ld6U97wgSzWdohj9gqQW8N T67j4vEFFCCoi2OiK17LbiFeAhiGvxViencx7yv3RcJElgeJIPpFmpf7_fls mwivTGU4Nk67dWSy0t7OCThMRZo5rj17FZZFWe9BC0cUXu2n74O3C2uDOLHe erTCDS33uVdV.SPPTgqFt88lPs_7WWzEgQ119csbL5_j55JypAeKnvnQsvak bfFS55G9HSq_Kd.QYJtsipdkSGVUSSlQAFJ.9KMqjo76qAhhy_VNhNGEveZV SAui9PEhgCkA6eJyXsbZ_HNcYiobftidXMedShN4pqotRlvEhE1NpO6BLFGz fu2kSPEQVqt_RwhLvtyZyqCvynELjxPR6bxBK5ISDKVGsDr_yHWt7qk0bb_. f2Yo- Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:25:47 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 Message-ID: <1309368347.78773.YahooMailRC@web111415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:25:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: "dmm@ietf.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [dmm] test mail X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:25:51 -0000 From charliep@computer.org Wed Jun 29 11:17:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23A821F8646 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:17:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V30d+mIyuciB for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C8B21F8625 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [138.111.58.2] (helo=[172.17.96.210]) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QbzKR-0000zB-U0 for dmm@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:17:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:17:32 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmm References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad862bf4095fafc595137a32d2365482c1f4350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 138.111.58.2 Subject: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:17:37 -0000 Hello folks, I have created the following draft. http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-000000.txt It's not really complete, but it could be submitted this week. I can add a lot more text and References, according to any suggestions you might have. I can also add discussion sections for particular approaches as may be needed. I am still not clear how to co-exist with the other comparison draft. Regards, Charlie P. From carlw@mcsr-labs.org Wed Jun 29 11:21:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC2C21F868F for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:21:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bCEVXLbIE8yk for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail115c38.carrierzone.com (mail115c38.carrierzone.com [66.175.56.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0417F21F868C for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:21:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Authenticated-User: carlw.mcsr-labs.org Received: from carlwPCstudio ([69.241.19.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail115c38.carrierzone.com (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p5TILC77013763; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:21:16 +0000 From: "Carl Williams" To: , "'dmm'" References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> In-Reply-To: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:21:22 -0400 Message-ID: <00d801cc3689$5c9d1680$15d74380$@org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acw2iNVdJswtQ8RXQaqc4cViU1z4hgAAHAMQ Content-Language: en-us X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=1.1 cv=YpnXQ7Kep+IsOSlYl0lFvgeHuV+9BKx46ATUVHptEN8= c=1 sm=1 a=4hAaRxD77-cA:10 a=Gzqcop6RMF0A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=2lURuVCmiJyVCoEiW06CWg==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=No5EcEP4AAAA:8 a=B2uR4zFGfUHfAAmuZpAA:9 a=a-z40Hs9d4jZ1x7beBMA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=2lURuVCmiJyVCoEiW06CWg==:117 Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:21:26 -0000 Hi Charlie, For your matrix what did you base your "Y" or "N" answers in the entries? Were they subjective or objective analysis? Carl -----Original Message----- From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charles E. Perkins Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:18 PM To: dmm Subject: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available Hello folks, I have created the following draft. http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-000000.txt It's not really complete, but it could be submitted this week. I can add a lot more text and References, according to any suggestions you might have. I can also add discussion sections for particular approaches as may be needed. I am still not clear how to co-exist with the other comparison draft. Regards, Charlie P. _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm From charliep@computer.org Wed Jun 29 11:37:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDAF11E808F for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:37:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gyKCdDpXlfK2 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:37:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3959911E8086 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:37:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [64.105.168.146] (helo=[10.1.100.58]) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QbzdC-0004H0-Vu; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:36:59 -0400 Message-ID: <4E0B70C9.2030404@computer.org> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:36:57 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carl Williams References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <00d801cc3689$5c9d1680$15d74380$@org> In-Reply-To: <00d801cc3689$5c9d1680$15d74380$@org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad86ff77534e23c683217e21950921931cdf350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 64.105.168.146 Cc: 'dmm' Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:37:04 -0000 Hello Carl, Well, I tried to be objective... I'm not sure exactly how to answer your question. Could you give an example of the difference between a subjective decision versus an objective decision for some of the entries? Regards, Charlie P. On 6/29/2011 11:21 AM, Carl Williams wrote: > Hi Charlie, > > For your matrix what did you base your "Y" or "N" answers in the entries? > > Were they subjective or objective analysis? > > Carl > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Charles E. Perkins > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:18 PM > To: dmm > Subject: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available > > > Hello folks, > > > > I have created the following draft. > > http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-000000.txt > > It's not really complete, but it could be submitted > this week. I can add a lot more text and References, > according to any suggestions you might have. I can > also add discussion sections for particular approaches > as may be needed. I am still not clear how to co-exist > with the other comparison draft. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > > From carlw@mcsr-labs.org Wed Jun 29 12:15:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5380211E80D9 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:15:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZtwpCTUbYAmM for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:15:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail123c38.carrierzone.com (mail123c38.carrierzone.com [66.175.56.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412D611E80D4 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:15:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Authenticated-User: carlw.mcsr-labs.org Received: from carlwPCstudio ([69.241.19.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail123c38.carrierzone.com (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p5TJErLO031447; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:14:55 +0000 From: "Carl Williams" To: References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <00d801cc3689$5c9d1680$15d74380$@org> <4E0B70C9.2030404@computer.org> In-Reply-To: <4E0B70C9.2030404@computer.org> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:15:04 -0400 Message-ID: <00dc01cc3690$db606560$92213020$@org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acw2i4jHJFFC0N6oSq+6CN/tb4F1EgABShXw Content-Language: en-us X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=1.1 cv=WQrBSZ4NjBgfqVSntgMbVm2UG0GnfJPX7he+wznYkhY= c=1 sm=1 a=4hAaRxD77-cA:10 a=Gzqcop6RMF0A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=2lURuVCmiJyVCoEiW06CWg==:17 a=8qSefF8wAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=No5EcEP4AAAA:8 a=5xviW8TLz5UEQs73lGYA:9 a=1XRHjqmfoyg-m3R02oQA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=mHZC5r8sFEQA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=2lURuVCmiJyVCoEiW06CWg==:117 Cc: 'dmm' Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:15:10 -0000 Did you base your numbers on specific experiments. I know that there was a presentation on some experiments presented on one method in Prague. If you just marked "Y" and "N" based on your opinion then I am not sure this is worth publishing. Carl -----Original Message----- From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:charliep@computer.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:37 PM To: Carl Williams Cc: 'dmm' Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available Hello Carl, Well, I tried to be objective... I'm not sure exactly how to answer your question. Could you give an example of the difference between a subjective decision versus an objective decision for some of the entries? Regards, Charlie P. On 6/29/2011 11:21 AM, Carl Williams wrote: > Hi Charlie, > > For your matrix what did you base your "Y" or "N" answers in the entries? > > Were they subjective or objective analysis? > > Carl > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Charles E. Perkins > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:18 PM > To: dmm > Subject: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available > > > Hello folks, > > > > I have created the following draft. > > http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-000000.txt > > It's not really complete, but it could be submitted > this week. I can add a lot more text and References, > according to any suggestions you might have. I can > also add discussion sections for particular approaches > as may be needed. I am still not clear how to co-exist > with the other comparison draft. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > > From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Wed Jun 29 12:19:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E13511E80E4 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:19:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.174 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.425, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WOK2E7U0v9jQ for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm4.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm4.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EC8EF11E80AA for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:18:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.68] by nm4.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jun 2011 19:18:52 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.41] by tm8.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jun 2011 19:18:52 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1041.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jun 2011 19:18:52 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 259417.26915.bm@omp1041.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 72637 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Jun 2011 19:18:51 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1309375131; bh=DzHTIyAviRDR/X1fwZYQVjtw3NPA8VyMDv6kHL5VPlU=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=INrS+PyD7zfs+syu6Bgy4HcpiXOwmBKrXrH0tp5ttfeEZ/4EfiH6Liy7HYPiNhYB4RMkCl8IuQ1TUsY+KghOYZwDIe858r2mZWX/2d25qj3wrRIQziNvbSgO27oQRpAKJthmm80J3yCmbJErZgpZnC3PgBUP7z6pXZgreZzDlOI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=x7FmSZIS3Sfd1wJSc5FQYH+LVXQ3Q0ZSt22R+gSKQHb9CrOJ+P5YAcj3b7/mCAazeevo8KkGmE7NCZGH2eHxFy2WK8nSnPU0REvhvtpBkm9UdY2D1ONO9MP+7ChfTromug9amp1AL3O8D/jygqvLcXsH2HYHs7wM/Hz0sBA9xfw=; X-YMail-OSG: QqN51R4VM1kVVDuPud0soMxeB1AqvVCmVqH4u7uFD9LxDfm Ba6HDCOfX1iEX0NpwEqz.6surfbJFGY5i9YwIpcMNoSmpmpIIHyXWZX5e8Ht wciPB.h_eAQSpZFx4ZK3KuvFUVOcvFKgHL7Ici4jCq7iRmXfRol5Z3Qte0jt zi2fPRlJVQEOX1pl991V9ACfe7NeboGrnqQ7jFVwaiYoY90hl.jg5hog.ded WxW4TRAcka4NobJTn9qupavGL4b9hCJb4XTrK9_OJbC_MB9c6DAhZxAV3NZl HtPA0SHRDFKeyVi0w75r0VVFMIkvSNvPA7mYijj0fvMs4kgS389WCpmAwptk z715k4_NZMm.o9F7lW1oohtMDnjocHPXDbSKmhwmS2WB1_pdUtuWnImZgu5z MnhYq4ouQVTCTxmt.0MO3Rhv1xfrqKTOR3bc_L7L1PkgfjWC_xJoI5_qIS.b AwkjOVlPl5HtKCtTJm5InMY_5BfbvzfkRp.tnjTfQRaL9QhcEzXOu6uIZyoi 72xjiU.qDo_08A86GDvE- Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:18:51 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> Message-ID: <1309375131.58001.YahooMailRC@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:18:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: charliep@computer.org, dmm In-Reply-To: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:19:02 -0000 Hi Charlie, In view of efforts to come up with a complete solution possibly by combining some pieces that are mentioned in your matrix as in: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-mext-multicastdmm-00.txt I don't know how valuable your matrix would contribute to the discussion? Personally I don't view CN-wo-HA as a solution to dmm problem. Regards, Behcet > > Hello folks, > > > > I have created the following draft. > > http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-000000.txt > > It's not really complete, but it could be submitted > this week. I can add a lot more text and References, > according to any suggestions you might have. I can > also add discussion sections for particular approaches > as may be needed. I am still not clear how to co-exist > with the other comparison draft. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > From rkuntz@us.toyota-itc.com Wed Jun 29 14:19:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208E211E807B for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:19:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o8T+zypvCHqX for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 32BAA9E8056 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f176.google.com ([209.85.210.176]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob111.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTguW3EqLmupcibjHvtSNDHa0apF6vWdl@postini.com; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:19:25 PDT Received: by mail-iy0-f176.google.com with SMTP id 20so2089997iyi.21 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.67.207 with SMTP id s15mr1009097ibi.128.1309382363879; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:19:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.18.145] (adsl-99-49-9-53.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net [99.49.9.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w11sm798709ibw.58.2011.06.29.14.19.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:19:23 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Romain KUNTZ In-Reply-To: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:19:18 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> To: charliep@computer.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:19:26 -0000 Hello Charlie,=20 Thanks for this document. Now that DMM is part of the MEXT charter, = would it make sense to advertise and discuss it on MEXT ML instead? Do you refer to [1] as the "other comparison draft"? I believe your = draft provides a higher-level description on the approaches rather than = comparing existing potential solutions (which is what we did in [1]). [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 It's good to agree on the approach before further designing or improving = the solutions. However, that could help to cite some drafts behind the = concepts. For example, I believe Global HAHA would fall into the "DynHA" = category, and it does support IP address continuity (but it is marked as = "N" in your chart). Also, DMM is about mobility management, so does it still make sense to = consider approaches that do not consider IP address continuity? And one = last comment: maybe source address selection should be seen as a = criteria and not an approach as itself?=20 Thank you, romain On Jun 29, 2011, at 11:17, Charles E. Perkins wrote: >=20 > Hello folks, >=20 > >=20 > I have created the following draft. >=20 > = http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-000000.tx= t >=20 > It's not really complete, but it could be submitted > this week. I can add a lot more text and References, > according to any suggestions you might have. I can > also add discussion sections for particular approaches > as may be needed. I am still not clear how to co-exist > with the other comparison draft. >=20 > Regards, > Charlie P. > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm From charliep@computer.org Wed Jun 29 14:26:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5299B9E8063 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:26:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XqglQp25pvhK for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:26:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F1D9E805D for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:26:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [138.111.58.2] (helo=[172.17.96.210]) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Qc2HS-0005IT-U1; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:26:43 -0400 Message-ID: <4E0B9890.3010209@computer.org> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:26:40 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carl Williams References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <00d801cc3689$5c9d1680$15d74380$@org> <4E0B70C9.2030404@computer.org> <00dc01cc3690$db606560$92213020$@org> In-Reply-To: <00dc01cc3690$db606560$92213020$@org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad86f855e1e4783b35be700b542b4ead8f1b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 138.111.58.2 Cc: 'dmm' Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:26:44 -0000 Hello Carl, On 6/29/2011 12:15 PM, Carl Williams wrote: > Did you base your numbers on specific experiments. I know that there was a > presentation on some experiments presented on one method in Prague. Do any matrix entries conflict with those experiments? > If you just marked "Y" and "N" based on your opinion then I am not sure this > is worth publishing. Ouch! I was hoping for some more constructive feedback -- especially if you find that some of the matrix entries are incorrect or questionable. Regards, Charlie P. From charliep@computer.org Wed Jun 29 16:16:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C13D611E811F for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:16:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gRWXhBvlUyFN for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC7511E811E for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [138.111.58.2] (helo=[172.17.96.210]) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Qc408-0000au-00; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:16:56 -0400 Message-ID: <4E0BB266.2020306@computer.org> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:16:54 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Romain KUNTZ References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> In-Reply-To: <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad86d66807249e2fd4711dd37597b047a16f350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 138.111.58.2 Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:16:57 -0000 On 6/29/2011 2:19 PM, Romain KUNTZ wrote: > > Thanks for this document. Now that DMM is part of the MEXT charter, > would it make sense to advertise and discuss it on MEXT ML instead? I see your point -- but does this imply that the [dmm] mailing list is no longer serving a useful function? > Do you refer to [1] as the "other comparison draft"? I believe your draft > provides a higher-level description on the approaches rather than comparing > existing potential solutions (which is what we did in [1]). Yes, that's the draft I read (and need to re-read). > It's good to agree on the approach before further designing or improving > the solutions. However, that could help to cite some drafts behind the > concepts. For example, I believe Global HAHA would fall into the "DynHA" > category, and it does support IP address continuity (but it is marked as > "N" in your chart). I do need to cite more drafts, and I need to mull over your point about Global HAHA and go back to check that document also. > Also, DMM is about mobility management, so does it still make sense to > consider approaches that do not consider IP address continuity? It is O.K. with me to exclude approaches that do not offer IP address continuity. > And one > last comment: maybe source address selection should be seen as a criteria > and not an approach as itself? I had thought that source address selection was offered as a potential solution to DMM. By your argument just above, I am O.K. to exclude it. But I don't understand how it can be considered a criterion for other approaches. Can you say more? Regards, Charlie P. From carlw@mcsr-labs.org Wed Jun 29 20:18:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F35421F85DF for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:18:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7n6v2LlYPCYH for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail150c38.carrierzone.com (mail150c38.carrierzone.com [66.175.56.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F1921F85D1 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:18:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Authenticated-User: carlw.mcsr-labs.org Received: from carlwPCstudio (c-68-81-216-89.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [68.81.216.89]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail150c38.carrierzone.com (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p5U3IA2L000446; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:18:12 +0000 From: "Carl Williams" To: References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <00d801cc3689$5c9d1680$15d74380$@org> <4E0B70C9.2030404@computer.org> <00dc01cc3690$db606560$92213020$@org> <4E0B9890.3010209@computer.org> In-Reply-To: <4E0B9890.3010209@computer.org> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:18:21 -0400 Message-ID: <00f701cc36d4$5e808770$1b819650$@org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acw2oz7qawlzlAqwThebM48Ea6f5cwAMOXuA Content-Language: en-us X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=1.1 cv=JVcfv8PVBzkSbII2sFYrMKLz19MaNQlQHCvFHjSqRjY= c=1 sm=1 a=4hAaRxD77-cA:10 a=Gzqcop6RMF0A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=LxiKhPHiM6SZkGhhvf1Wpw==:17 a=8qSefF8wAAAA:8 a=5mEGF5KqBVG1mzy35hgA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=mHZC5r8sFEQA:10 a=LxiKhPHiM6SZkGhhvf1Wpw==:117 Cc: 'dmm' Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:18:16 -0000 Hi Charlie, I think that publishing the draft may be ok. I just think that you should explain how you arrived at your "Y" and "N" notations in the matrix. Carl -----Original Message----- From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:charliep@computer.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 5:27 PM To: Carl Williams Cc: 'dmm' Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available Hello Carl, On 6/29/2011 12:15 PM, Carl Williams wrote: > Did you base your numbers on specific experiments. I know that there was a > presentation on some experiments presented on one method in Prague. Do any matrix entries conflict with those experiments? > If you just marked "Y" and "N" based on your opinion then I am not sure this > is worth publishing. Ouch! I was hoping for some more constructive feedback -- especially if you find that some of the matrix entries are incorrect or questionable. Regards, Charlie P. From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Thu Jun 30 08:15:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C89C11E820C for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.459 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.140, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LEbbyEMsnsoV for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm18-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm18-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.214]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 34CED11E819D for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.70] by nm18.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jun 2011 15:14:53 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.34] by tm10.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jun 2011 15:14:53 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1034.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jun 2011 15:14:53 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 476298.96331.bm@omp1034.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 44216 invoked by uid 60001); 30 Jun 2011 15:14:53 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1309446893; bh=VP1eTzqa+AaBoi8T/Q0a6gGw4jV6haHRFuIT1ePKXWU=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=tkjRxJ2cPJErgS7acq728Cp9wcOfEUKRsHJXG5XJ17X5RO9cSJ35gMhGsr3O9rSbwrxWMKQjKNfFb1+cMtmJ3XBQ95comdhUCKmZDmzC7ZLdJ+uOdVZJxYf2YIwwma3NdbBxe8//UJQrddvhB3k6h/ycQupHCCVF4ZLU7UFgq9g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=EjSHPD5c3gopDqBrEdlv2vak0nYslZSDKUHYJV6r5Wlo5VYSuHqcSJYmBNoJgRHXC1RRDmpY1wgfIWodJ40qYcPEaObvUJvu6PoCmA8F85TtP6fZ0BXknhEOuPc/YTkuLZy/kXYJtU+vYkxsd+wNzxVi/L8oFKcblmFFFyALflM=; X-YMail-OSG: g3HS4coVM1neMFwB.GFcvTzoEP4tJH3uR1EWAkN0w2_KVak g3BfSwaV3KVOmjhOUf6zlgMdgciAwMLwXKjxX3MwvmlWvj7a98QVBdmbqRkE EZPfsKQP1NjWi8HeWn6x3Ev59Cm498GEdhUkruwl7x63iijk7POE7nJR5OSC NgcJeG4q..Pli27aYAtliR5ETVhqvZ0sd345pF1QTvMq320C13gNi31770kX qnCaQC33NSqfXlsFulZbdPIQljIbHqgrFXtNhLY1YJKMXBh8SDMeBg07cw34 k6ySb6HBZcJIFvBWe6z7qZVsPHQLI7bhdZtJRvJMjVzVZhSkiDVxCGvk8peN RLA.7k_dklWaDXQ4H79.aXGuwRNk0EINtI0ZCZyjBGljY8rVjZiYH1TWFE_h n_Fy.iDGjjtbfHBdo0B5M56UNI62ht5GiHqSBv.1UgALEIUO1Ibx4JSmn6p7 qYC.UDBj1WEDpyxdzNdGTuBv4ThcD9xYJMWyamyJ8S1aNKXJuuJ4v1e8pn9m DiYglCOyMaaOfXEps.GY- Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:14:52 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> Message-ID: <1309446892.22958.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:14:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Romain KUNTZ , charliep@computer.org In-Reply-To: <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:15:02 -0000 Hi Romain, Is this what you mean? Operational considerations for distributed use of Mobile IPv6 They are ;looking for an Informational document. Regards, Behcet > Hello Charlie, > > Thanks for this document. Now that DMM is part of the MEXT charter, would it >make sense to advertise and discuss it on MEXT ML instead? > > Do you refer to [1] as the "other comparison draft"? I believe your draft >provides a higher-level description on the approaches rather than comparing >existing potential solutions (which is what we did in [1]). > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 > > It's good to agree on the approach before further designing or improving the >solutions. However, that could help to cite some drafts behind the concepts. >For example, I believe Global HAHA would fall into the "DynHA" category, and it > >does support IP address continuity (but it is marked as "N" in your chart). > > Also, DMM is about mobility management, so does it still make sense to >consider approaches that do not consider IP address continuity? And one last >comment: maybe source address selection should be seen as a criteria and not an > >approach as itself? > > > Thank you, > romain > > On Jun 29, 2011, at 11:17, Charles E. Perkins wrote: > > > > > Hello folks, > > > > > > > > I have created the following draft. > > > > http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-000000.txt > > > > It's not really complete, but it could be submitted > > this week. I can add a lot more text and References, > > according to any suggestions you might have. I can > > also add discussion sections for particular approaches > > as may be needed. I am still not clear how to co-exist > > with the other comparison draft. > > > > Regards, > > Charlie P. > > _______________________________________________ > > dmm mailing list > > dmm@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > From charliep@computer.org Thu Jun 30 08:41:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B04A11E8207 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:41:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ob7jVJIHvmG3 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9438321F85CF for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [138.111.58.2] (helo=[172.17.96.210]) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QcJNF-0007cY-T2; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:41:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4E0C993B.6000905@computer.org> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:41:47 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carl Williams References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <00d801cc3689$5c9d1680$15d74380$@org> <4E0B70C9.2030404@computer.org> <00dc01cc3690$db606560$92213020$@org> <4E0B9890.3010209@computer.org> <00f701cc36d4$5e808770$1b819650$@org> In-Reply-To: <00f701cc36d4$5e808770$1b819650$@org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad868c20b4bd492bc5da38104e198edcfc2e350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 138.111.58.2 Cc: 'dmm' Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:41:59 -0000 Hello Carl, On 6/29/2011 8:18 PM, Carl Williams wrote: > I think that publishing the draft may be ok. I just think that you > should explain how you arrived at your "Y" and "N" notations in the matrix. Understood -- and the drafty draft has a paragraph indicating that explanations will be forthcoming. Regards, Charlie P. From charliep@computer.org Thu Jun 30 09:01:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E7911E81FD for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:01:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wjeolmifcdAN for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC5B11E81F9 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [138.111.58.2] (helo=[172.17.96.210]) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QcJg5-0007VS-5b; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:01:17 -0400 Message-ID: <4E0C9DCA.6070804@computer.org> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:01:14 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Romain KUNTZ References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> In-Reply-To: <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad86df732bcd6e093b3138c53e5cf9d62db7350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 138.111.58.2 Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:01:54 -0000 Hello Romain, More follow-up below... On 6/29/2011 2:19 PM, Romain KUNTZ wrote: > Do you refer to [1] as the "other comparison draft"? I believe your draft > provides a higher-level description on the approaches rather than comparing > existing potential solutions (which is what we did in [1]). For now, I will cite your draft as relevant information, most likely in support of some matrix entries. If you want to suggest specifically related entries, that would be appreciated. > It's good to agree on the approach before further designing or improving the > solutions. However, that could help to cite some drafts behind the concepts. Indeed -- I thoroughly agree. > For example, I believe Global HAHA would fall into the "DynHA" category, and > it does support IP address continuity (but it is marked as "N" in your chart). Thanks again for the reminder about Global HAHA. I had not remembered it, and I think it does qualify as a sort of "DynHA". I need to think about a way to distinguish between the kinds of "DynHA" that do support address continuity, versus the kinds that do not. > Also, DMM is about mobility management, so does it still make sense to > consider approaches that do not consider IP address continuity? I'm still awaiting to see if consensus will develop for excluding approaches that do not provide IP address continuity. Regards, Charlie P. From rkuntz@us.toyota-itc.com Thu Jun 30 18:46:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EFE011E8241 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rYUX+zlMe1AJ for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog101.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog101.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 08BE111E810B for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob101.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTg0nBtrwjJ3lW6iomTdJIXOa2Ui72pHx@postini.com; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:48 PDT Received: by iwn8 with SMTP id 8so2658342iwn.28 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.155.194 with SMTP id v2mr2746440icw.511.1309484806206; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ben-lt3.paloalto.toyota-itc.com ([206.132.173.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vn4sm2753840icb.19.2011.06.30.18.46.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Romain KUNTZ In-Reply-To: <1309446892.22958.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:41 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4BB26130-DEEF-4A97-9720-DE8AED8D2C96@us.toyota-itc.com> References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> <1309446892.22958.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> To: Behcet Sarikaya X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 01:46:49 -0000 Hi Behcet, On Jun 30, 2011, at 8:14, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Is this what you mean? >=20 > Operational considerations for distributed use of Mobile IPv6 >=20 > They are ;looking for an Informational document. Yes, this is what I meant. I understand some of the below discussion is = not only related to Mobile IPv6, so I'm fine if we stick to the dmm ML.=20= Regards, romain >> Hello Charlie,=20 >>=20 >> Thanks for this document. Now that DMM is part of the MEXT charter, = would it=20 >> make sense to advertise and discuss it on MEXT ML instead? >>=20 >> Do you refer to [1] as the "other comparison draft"? I believe your = draft=20 >> provides a higher-level description on the approaches rather than = comparing=20 >> existing potential solutions (which is what we did in [1]). >>=20 >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 >>=20 >> It's good to agree on the approach before further designing or = improving the=20 >> solutions. However, that could help to cite some drafts behind the = concepts.=20 >> For example, I believe Global HAHA would fall into the "DynHA" = category, and it=20 >>=20 >> does support IP address continuity (but it is marked as "N" in your = chart). >>=20 >> Also, DMM is about mobility management, so does it still make sense = to=20 >> consider approaches that do not consider IP address continuity? And = one last=20 >> comment: maybe source address selection should be seen as a criteria = and not an=20 >>=20 >> approach as itself?=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Thank you, >> romain >>=20 >> On Jun 29, 2011, at 11:17, Charles E. Perkins wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Hello folks, >>>=20 >>> >>>=20 >>> I have created the following draft. >>>=20 >>> = http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-000000.tx= t >>>=20 >>> It's not really complete, but it could be submitted >>> this week. I can add a lot more text and References, >>> according to any suggestions you might have. I can >>> also add discussion sections for particular approaches >>> as may be needed. I am still not clear how to co-exist >>> with the other comparison draft. >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>> Charlie P. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm mailing list >>> dmm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> dmm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>=20 From maxpassion@gmail.com Thu Jun 30 18:46:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD6B11E8261 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kwBMEJzemsQ0 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3B911E810B for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so3065207iye.31 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mFkZufnanrXAGegsgIV4k4v6tJxApNBKNmkB8dj4fiM=; b=oN8Qw5ZXx0mee/vP0CM47P14lc1sym8/EMyrZbxOpN6LUXdFSo4OkFnO/0Qd1dINMc DFEiQHxR4+LTH0b6+IOo9WAakEzIZ+0nU6MkHs+zxEwRuN62fY5B8xjA3Cs8P53xeUMC l8pga0BOXRtW/DqFUEmN8LbScSS+KIcWQs9CA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.74.84 with SMTP id t20mr2328258ibj.38.1309484813314; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.168.202 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:46:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E0C9DCA.6070804@computer.org> References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> <4E0C9DCA.6070804@computer.org> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:46:53 +0800 Message-ID: From: liu dapeng To: charliep@computer.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 01:46:56 -0000 Hello all, I have a question: for current approach comparison, shall we consider all relevant individual drafts or just compare the one has RFC? Thanks. Best regards, Dapeng Liu 2011/7/1, Charles E. Perkins : > > Hello Romain, > > More follow-up below... > > On 6/29/2011 2:19 PM, Romain KUNTZ wrote: > >> Do you refer to [1] as the "other comparison draft"? I believe your draft >> provides a higher-level description on the approaches rather than >> comparing >> existing potential solutions (which is what we did in [1]). > > For now, I will cite your draft as relevant information, most > likely in support of some matrix entries. If you want to suggest > specifically related entries, that would be appreciated. > >> It's good to agree on the approach before further designing or improving >> the >> solutions. However, that could help to cite some drafts behind the >> concepts. > > Indeed -- I thoroughly agree. > >> For example, I believe Global HAHA would fall into the "DynHA" category, >> and >> it does support IP address continuity (but it is marked as "N" in your >> chart). > > Thanks again for the reminder about Global HAHA. I had not > remembered it, and I think it does qualify as a sort of "DynHA". > I need to think about a way to distinguish between the kinds > of "DynHA" that do support address continuity, versus the > kinds that do not. > > >> Also, DMM is about mobility management, so does it still make sense to >> consider approaches that do not consider IP address continuity? > > > I'm still awaiting to see if consensus will develop for > excluding approaches that do not provide IP address continuity. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu From rkuntz@us.toyota-itc.com Thu Jun 30 19:32:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CA2228023 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:32:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ILIIgN9xhIjz for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog118.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog118.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 42D99228022 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob118.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTg0xw+ez8dafvoC+fbT6xa5o/cqIVWT4@postini.com; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:32:36 PDT Received: by mail-iw0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 42so2762087iwl.38 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:32:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.168.3 with SMTP id u3mr2643173icy.355.1309487554040; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ben-lt3.paloalto.toyota-itc.com ([206.132.173.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e1sm2800968icv.8.2011.06.30.19.32.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:32:33 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Romain KUNTZ In-Reply-To: <4E0BB266.2020306@computer.org> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:32:31 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6C65495E-D9B0-4CE1-8CBF-AF1B5B44B1BF@us.toyota-itc.com> References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> <4E0BB266.2020306@computer.org> To: charliep@computer.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 02:32:37 -0000 Hello Charlie, On Jun 29, 2011, at 16:16, Charles E. Perkins wrote: > On 6/29/2011 2:19 PM, Romain KUNTZ wrote: >>=20 >> Thanks for this document. Now that DMM is part of the MEXT charter, >> would it make sense to advertise and discuss it on MEXT ML instead? >=20 > I see your point -- but does this imply that the [dmm] mailing list > is no longer serving a useful function? Re-reading the MEXT charter, it seems that they only have interest in = DMM considerations for Mobile IPv6.=20 Our drafts goes beyond that scope, so this ML seems to be the right = place. However, as we also consider Mobile IPv6-based solutions, we = should deliver MEXT some input at some point. >> Do you refer to [1] as the "other comparison draft"? I believe your = draft >> provides a higher-level description on the approaches rather than = comparing >> existing potential solutions (which is what we did in [1]). >=20 > Yes, that's the draft I read (and need to re-read). >=20 >> It's good to agree on the approach before further designing or = improving >> the solutions. However, that could help to cite some drafts behind = the >> concepts. For example, I believe Global HAHA would fall into the = "DynHA" >> category, and it does support IP address continuity (but it is marked = as >> "N" in your chart). >=20 > I do need to cite more drafts, and I need to mull over your > point about Global HAHA and go back to check that document also. I'm not sure if you plan to consider only WG documents, but currently = Global HAHA is not one of them. >> Also, DMM is about mobility management, so does it still make sense = to >> consider approaches that do not consider IP address continuity? >=20 > It is O.K. with me to exclude approaches that do not > offer IP address continuity. >=20 >> And = one >> last comment: maybe source address selection should be seen as a = criteria >> and not an approach as itself? >=20 > I had thought that source address selection was offered as a > potential solution to DMM. By your argument just above, I am > O.K. to exclude it. But I don't understand how it can be > considered a criterion for other approaches. Can you say more? My mistake, that is more relevant as an approach. Note that in the = current DMM solution space, it is usually not considered as an apporach = by itself, but coupled with other mechanisms to achieve "dynamic" use of = the mobility support (e.g. to choose between CoA and HoA as source = address). Regards, Romain= From rkuntz@us.toyota-itc.com Thu Jun 30 20:10:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21CB61F0C3D for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:10:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cCJ3MYHT8EwY for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3513D1F0C3C for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f177.google.com ([209.85.210.177]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob102.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTg06u0tzue+qqB8DWpvhi8QiwjNmPfu4@postini.com; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:10:52 PDT Received: by mail-iy0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 15so3019523iyn.8 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.82.197 with SMTP id c5mr2351613ibl.131.1309489850861; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ben-lt3.paloalto.toyota-itc.com ([206.132.173.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x4sm806318ibm.42.2011.06.30.20.10.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Romain KUNTZ In-Reply-To: <4E0C9DCA.6070804@computer.org> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:10:45 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <118634F8-A264-4AF8-B802-337732021A65@us.toyota-itc.com> References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> <4E0C9DCA.6070804@computer.org> To: charliep@computer.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [dmm] Comparison matrix drafty draft available X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 03:10:53 -0000 Hello Charlie,=20 On Jun 30, 2011, at 9:01, Charles E. Perkins wrote: > On 6/29/2011 2:19 PM, Romain KUNTZ wrote: >=20 >> Do you refer to [1] as the "other comparison draft"? I believe your = draft >> provides a higher-level description on the approaches rather than = comparing >> existing potential solutions (which is what we did in [1]). >=20 > For now, I will cite your draft as relevant information, most > likely in support of some matrix entries. If you want to suggest > specifically related entries, that would be appreciated. Sure. Let me try to match the solutions cited in our draft with some of = the approaches listed in yours, and point what criterion would be = different from your chart: - FAMA and DMI combines source address selection and local anchor. FAMA = does not allow for local routing (all addresses are anchored) but DMI = does (CoA can be used for communication). This is not very app friendly = as multiple usable addresses can co-exist on the node; this may require = a specific application API maybe? Similarly, DMA combines source address = selection and local anchor, and allows local routing.=20 - HMIPv6 combines local anchor and RO. For the "backhaul friendly" = criterion, I would say "No" because a centralized HA still remains, - DLMA combines local anchor and RO, but reduces the signaling by = centralizing the location management; Also, adding a criterion on failure would be useful (whether the = approach can survive a failure of the anchor or one of the anchors), = what do you think? >> It's good to agree on the approach before further designing or = improving the >> solutions. However, that could help to cite some drafts behind the = concepts. >=20 > Indeed -- I thoroughly agree. >=20 >> For example, I believe Global HAHA would fall into the "DynHA" = category, and >> it does support IP address continuity (but it is marked as "N" in = your chart). >=20 > Thanks again for the reminder about Global HAHA. I had not > remembered it, and I think it does qualify as a sort of "DynHA". > I need to think about a way to distinguish between the kinds > of "DynHA" that do support address continuity, versus the > kinds that do not. Ok. >> Also, DMM is about mobility management, so does it still make sense = to >> consider approaches that do not consider IP address continuity? >=20 >=20 > I'm still awaiting to see if consensus will develop for > excluding approaches that do not provide IP address continuity. Sure, let's see. Thank you, romain