From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Fri Jul 1 08:43:35 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 64D169E8088 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 08:43:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.485 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.486, BAYES_50=0.001] 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 RYoi1OpXnJ8C for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 08:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm22-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm22-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.222]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EABC79E8083 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 08:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.64] by nm22.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Jul 2011 15:43:34 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.17] by tm4.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Jul 2011 15:43:34 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1017.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Jul 2011 15:43:34 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 855705.24937.bm@omp1017.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 4327 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Jul 2011 15:43:34 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1309535014; bh=nwshVDhFxuGcublx1jpMyFzRGUv8D9ZPA+Kh3fWQH68=; 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=Z7P3L39eiV3dMKQlKCxjJCr5j2qgfExHrkBA0UIt6HsNIwnBdK97S9mFqaQ/COgRauI2sI4nAP997U9k3Y84wK7eKX7b8BkIF08uJWKHdPADb0j1uKVJ+GQBblsZc+xEdtkJtCplAPX12tcr3pIYRF97ZUjAah51p5ZUIwHwVU8= 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=mGU63Ylr4bZucOhwH8zGN4Z17FDrChLWv5KY4v0QtnG7uA2Mxcideun17S7xx9wPNABGQtrLpvhov0dhQlne+d0JuaR5DiXzbR6x2IroBuvGzJe2az6RN5II4RNHAkvOfWNZQhKTvwx12ArrsR6PsLqqWykjfNmcmh5wDBTx1bQ=; X-YMail-OSG: lG7D3HkVM1nWOYB4.r1JFF_jBf7u8b15EITqfIPfjf_HVDi mZf0uoUJiY8nWvgK5Kpt0XLffZ9wh_JMPV6DWLWa9YOLlRsBKiesDAYT7JJD E0KQo.G2Z6zVYuIs2woJYeDtBEJePSIPTX3Tz5Z2lY8NCy5CMXu5_ECbww8A 81cVWdJG0CLNp.d7ybG2r9jaAEU2EeGnilYZAvlbTjVO7q9_bMEGYxAbN5P8 z5CqLcOl0pyxL7xcxxccbtmxv9VhXbjbO2t9FEvW90_qN2tdPHvhFcjADPc8 imnvYp5W_9SGpL3B3FBOS2Q4otqniVgJYRcqNCchRTIZ4LaFXGMkutflvwqO DzA3BtwCUWE8bf8G.sb8uKTPqGVsrBmde7ouHCP6Q1KUpjHYRn8yMF8PwLAG jEeRSjSkp2QfekQ-- Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:43:34 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> <4E0C9DCA.6070804@computer.org> Message-ID: <1309535014.173.YahooMailRC@web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 08:43:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: liu dapeng , charliep@computer.org In-Reply-To: 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: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:43:35 -0000 Hi Dapeng, > Hello all, > > I have a question: for current approach comparison, shall we consider > all relevant individual drafts or just compare the one has RFC? I think we should make reviews of the drafts, especially those that provide full solution. We should not spend time on those that are RFCs like HMIP. Also we probably should use our time more on reviewing rather than comparing. Remember that reviewing might involve comparing as well. This will help individual draft authors to improve their drafts as well as help WG make a decision. Regards, Behcet From charliep@computer.org Fri Jul 1 08:59:05 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 E246A11E8144 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 08:59:05 -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 TphoRCOk0d-b for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 08:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C84211E80FD for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 08:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [138.111.58.2] (helo=[172.17.96.210]) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Qcg7S-0001kV-K2; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:59:02 -0400 Message-ID: <4E0DEEC4.2060703@computer.org> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:59:00 -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: Behcet Sarikaya References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> <4E0C9DCA.6070804@computer.org> <1309535014.173.YahooMailRC@web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1309535014.173.YahooMailRC@web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad862bb82df6d53a697d91dddd08991e2672350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 138.111.58.2 Cc: Behcet Sarikaya , 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: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:59:06 -0000 Hello Behcet, I understand your point, but it seems to me that we really must consider existing RFCs. To summarily exclude them would send the message that we insist on doing something new at all costs. Moreover, if we can make effective use of existing RFCs as part of our solution, we will get a lot more traction in the IESG and probably the working group as well. Regarding "review" vs. "compare" ... isn't this like "chicken" vs. "egg"? If we review but do not compare, what have we learned? If we compare but do not review, what are we doing anyway? Regards, Charlie P. On 7/1/2011 8:43 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi Dapeng, > > > >> Hello all, >> >> I have a question: for current approach comparison, shall we consider >> all relevant individual drafts or just compare the one has RFC? > > > I think we should make reviews of the drafts, especially those that provide full > solution. We should not spend time on those that are RFCs like HMIP. Also we > probably should use our time more on reviewing rather than comparing. Remember > that reviewing might involve comparing as well. > > This will help individual draft authors to improve their drafts as well as help > WG make a decision. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > From julien.ietf@gmail.com Fri Jul 1 10:50:05 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 968B111E8085 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:50:05 -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 ptvAQZq2dgVk for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AFE11E8078 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwb17 with SMTP id 17so3303961bwb.31 for ; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:50:03 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O92KyJGZ0MYpvyahCoouacs7HiMiz14NcQGlmXn6+fc=; b=eEjzA6eNhbThLW7L0bJ3gTdThgVzjjkTasAFCBmnD0EtNb3mkyB/YEq3DUm+SlEIKt l208TS8oJbiLpNCUwyzLTlpV/KMEdzoSnji/A+BRJ+bUpKpuxZt/nk9OJGHgZkaw4yIa myG9c6xK1rFlpWxgWnqGrTy9NTSrg9/Wmkjcw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.7.20 with SMTP id b20mr3235814bkb.132.1309542602928; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.65.193 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:50:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <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> <4BB26130-DEEF-4A97-9720-DE8AED8D2C96@us.toyota-itc.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:50:02 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Romain KUNTZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 17:50:05 -0000 I would advise that discussion happen in the MEXT WG mailing list for anything that might require Mobile IPv6 work. Aspects that are specific to Proxy Mobile IPv6 are best handled on the netext WG mailing list. For generic discussion that are not specific to these protocols I guess the dmm list is fine, but then I am wondering what would be the protocols in use? Keep in mind that usecase/scenario discussion would be useful to motivate a protocol work and thus you will need to bring those in the WG that develops these protocols at some point... --julien On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Romain KUNTZ wr= ote: > Hi Behcet, > > On Jun 30, 2011, at 8:14, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >> Is this what you mean? >> >> Operational considerations for distributed use of Mobile IPv6 >> >> They are ;looking for an Informational document. > > Yes, this is what I meant. I understand some of the below discussion is n= ot only related to Mobile IPv6, so I'm fine if we stick to the dmm ML. > > Regards, > romain > > >>> Hello Charlie, >>> >>> Thanks for this document. Now that DMM is part of the =A0MEXT charter, = would it >>> make sense to advertise and discuss it on MEXT ML =A0instead? >>> >>> Do you refer to [1] as the "other comparison draft"? I believe =A0your = draft >>> provides a higher-level description on the approaches rather than =A0co= mparing >>> existing potential solutions (which is what we did in [1]). >>> >>> [1] =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 >>> >>> It's good to agree =A0on the approach before further designing or impro= ving the >>> solutions. However, =A0that could help to cite some drafts behind the c= oncepts. >>> For example, I believe =A0Global HAHA would fall into the "DynHA" categ= ory, and it >>> >>> does support IP address =A0continuity (but it is marked as "N" in your = chart). >>> >>> Also, DMM is about =A0mobility management, so does it still make sense = to >>> consider approaches that do =A0not consider IP address continuity? And = one last >>> comment: maybe source address =A0selection should be seen as a criteria= and not an >>> >>> approach as itself? >>> >>> >>> Thank you, >>> romain >>> >>> On Jun 29, 2011, at 11:17, Charles E. =A0Perkins wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hello folks, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have created the following =A0draft. >>>> >>>> http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-00000= 0.txt >>>> >>>> It's not really complete, but it could be submitted >>>> this =A0week. =A0I can add a lot more text and References, >>>> according to any =A0suggestions you might have. =A0I can >>>> also add discussion sections for =A0particular approaches >>>> as may be needed. =A0I am still not clear how =A0to co-exist >>>> with the other comparison draft. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Charlie P. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dmm mailing list >>>> dmm@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm =A0mailing 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 Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Mon Jul 4 02:14:19 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 640B421F85D2; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 02:14:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.172 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] 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 80iMViehwXbD; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 02:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail73.telekom.de (tcmail73.telekom.de [217.243.239.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3D321F85A2; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 02:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he110890.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.92.131]) by tcmail71.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 04 Jul 2011 11:09:47 +0200 Received: from HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.4.236]) by he110890 ([10.134.92.131]) with mapi; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:09:09 +0200 From: To: , Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:09:09 +0200 Thread-Topic: [MEXT] IETF-81 Thread-Index: Acw1OPJtSAD0aRjPRMy0zAGrjswx3AE8Cb+A Message-ID: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> In-Reply-To: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] IETF-81 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: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 09:14:19 -0000 Dear all, I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need m= ore discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and poten= tially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list. Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in http://tools.ietf.= org/agenda/81/? Best regards Dirk -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Hi= detoshi Yokota Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 An: mext@ietf.org Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 Hi Julien and all, Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting will be needed. Please take a look at the following I-D: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt Thanks in advance for your support, -- Hidetoshi (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: > Folks, > > at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require > face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. > > --julien& marcelo > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From charliep@computer.org Mon Jul 4 17:29:08 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 65A5021F8772 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:29:08 -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 vmU9Nh484AcN for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:29:07 -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 B8F3F21F876C for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [99.51.74.16] (helo=[192.168.1.239]) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QdtVj-0001Xe-6e; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:29:07 -0400 Message-ID: <4E125ACE.8000501@computer.org> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:29:02 -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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad86cabeba199faba2c3cbaf073d3195e516350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 99.51.74.16 Cc: liudapeng@chinamobile.com Subject: [dmm] Revised document for DMM comparison matrix 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: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:29:08 -0000 Hello folks, The new document is available at the following URL: http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-00.txt I submitted this document at 4:45pm, and expected to receive and email for verifying the submission. The verification email has not arrived, and it is 5:10pm now. I think I somehow ran up against a bug in the submission process. We expect to update the document again this week in order to complete the explanation of all of the matrix entries, and also to take into account any additional mailing list discussion over the next few days. Please excuse the unexpected error preventing me from getting the submission completed on time before the IETF -00 submission deadline. Regards, Charlie P. From julien.ietf@gmail.com Tue Jul 5 08:29:06 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 C10149E801A; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:29:06 -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 t68fYFwPmcAA; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E1A21F8605; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwb17 with SMTP id 17so5834311bwb.31 for ; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:29:04 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zojaG5znKUs2tdm41OE7nrIyPrIoQHXlcTT1uaajUKY=; b=Mb48kg6dF4EEv9OUoSNsfdmBxidRr39prPPfKX0LrMPus8kym5Ht3YdhduScdLGOzE yKJXUxbhETqiRKCeElp9M96is9kRhXRica/364spnVGMS49k15XOcXmRvFxu4f1TowEG kGShRFqEXJmEAZjv3mRuGDdp0NxNMSg0WwZpM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.14.204 with SMTP id h12mr6739390bka.78.1309879743542; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.65.193 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:29:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:29:03 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] IETF-81 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: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:29:06 -0000 Dirk and Hidetoshi, Face to face meeting time should IMHO primarily be used to resolve issues that cannot be resolved on the WG mailing list. As of now I do not see any, hence the absence of a MEXT WG meeting. Best, --julien On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM, wrote: > Dear all, > I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need= more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and pot= entially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list. > Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in http://tools.iet= f.org/agenda/81/? > > Best regards > Dirk > > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von = Hidetoshi Yokota > Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 > An: mext@ietf.org > Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 > > Hi Julien and all, > > Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of > "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to > discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got > consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting > will be needed. > > Please take a look at the following I-D: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt > > Thanks in advance for your support, > -- > Hidetoshi > > (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >> Folks, >> >> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >> >> --julien& =A0marcelo >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > From yokota@kddilabs.jp Wed Jul 6 01:55:32 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 BE1CB21F873A; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 01:55:32 -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 1-GfdBY28G-8; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 01:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C26521F8672; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 01:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991E817481CA; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:53:37 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ezTqCCJSKn5E; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:53:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.145]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5904A17481B1; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:53:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) by ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2051A1B9B2; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:52:33 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:53:25 +0900 From: Hidetoshi Yokota User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julien Laganier References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: mext@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] IETF-81 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, 06 Jul 2011 08:55:32 -0000 Hi Julien, WG mailing list is the base of the discussion, but sometimes it takes very long time to proceed, by which it loses timeliness. Network-initiated flow mobility or Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) come from urgent needs and IETF has the reputation of responding to such needs in a timely manner. F2F meeting is generally more efficient than ML discussion and effective for the chairs to progress the standards process. I believe that ML discussion and F2F meeting are the two wheels of moving I-Ds forward and we shouldn't miss the opportunity of F2F meetings, which happen only three times in a year. Regards, -- Hidetoshi (2011/07/06 0:29), Julien Laganier wrote: > Dirk and Hidetoshi, > > Face to face meeting time should IMHO primarily be used to resolve > issues that cannot be resolved on the WG mailing list. As of now I do > not see any, hence the absence of a MEXT WG meeting. > > Best, > > --julien > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM, wrote: >> Dear all, >> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list. >> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/? >> >> Best regards >> Dirk >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Hidetoshi Yokota >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 >> An: mext@ietf.org >> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 >> >> Hi Julien and all, >> >> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of >> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to >> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got >> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting >> will be needed. >> >> Please take a look at the following I-D: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt >> >> Thanks in advance for your support, >> -- >> Hidetoshi >> >> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >>> >>> --julien& marcelo >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> dmm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> > > > From julien.ietf@gmail.com Wed Jul 6 07:31:58 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 EBD9521F85B1; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:31:58 -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 EfUG8nRgVgYp; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAAC621F85AC; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:31:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwb17 with SMTP id 17so137954bwb.31 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 07:31:56 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ap2vOSgto8SFnFCTJ+CHVq8/t+uMpOM44bl5wpoB1ss=; b=B0Hn6PCCf5UTiLxZWmh1H+4pP/+OMpa7qp1HANJ6Lx4J58Msm5L7DG03JWv3l7+63P FoSIY/75VziDQGJK2A/fqDi+wwRolV9fp/Cum+ybVt70wRdxbZHq16o1MRrq+C/044wm gypXH/l8Gqf/i894OqcLXxRdbvj2uPpbRh3oM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.42.129 with SMTP id s1mr7513412bke.213.1309962716312; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 07:31:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.65.193 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:31:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:31:55 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Hidetoshi Yokota Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mext@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] IETF-81 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, 06 Jul 2011 14:31:59 -0000 Hidetoshi, If WG mailing list on a given topic doesn' t happen in a timely fashion, I would suggest that either people are not interested in the topic, or it's not urgent to them. If a topic isn't urgent for people, then IMHO giving them face-to-face time isn't urgent either. --julien On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Hidetoshi Yokota wrote= : > Hi Julien, > > WG mailing list is the base of the discussion, but sometimes it takes ver= y > long time to proceed, by which it loses timeliness. Network-initiated flo= w > mobility or Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) come from urgent needs = and > IETF has the reputation of responding to such needs in a timely manner. F= 2F > meeting is generally more efficient than ML discussion and effective for = the > chairs to progress the standards process. I believe that ML discussion an= d > F2F meeting are the two wheels of moving I-Ds forward and we shouldn't mi= ss > the opportunity of F2F meetings, which happen only three times in a year. > > Regards, > -- > Hidetoshi > > (2011/07/06 0:29), Julien Laganier wrote: >> >> Dirk and Hidetoshi, >> >> Face to face meeting time should IMHO primarily be used to resolve >> issues that cannot be resolved on the WG mailing list. As of now I do >> not see any, hence the absence of a MEXT WG meeting. >> >> Best, >> >> --julien >> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM, =A0wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should ne= ed >>> more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and >>> potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this lis= t. >>> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in >>> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/? >>> >>> Best regards >>> Dirk >>> >>> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag vo= n >>> Hidetoshi Yokota >>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 >>> An: mext@ietf.org >>> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 >>> >>> Hi Julien and all, >>> >>> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of >>> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to >>> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got >>> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting >>> will be needed. >>> >>> Please take a look at the following I-D: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your support, >>> -- >>> Hidetoshi >>> >>> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >>>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >>>> >>>> --julien& =A0 =A0marcelo >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm mailing list >>> dmm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>> >> >> >> > > From yokota@kddilabs.jp Wed Jul 6 17:28:34 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 44B4021F87C7; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:28:34 -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 NpG-CAKilpXt; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 380FE21F87C1; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E084917482ED; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:28:00 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3q4JjJsswRYT; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:27:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.145]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A931817482E9; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:27:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) by ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B081B9B2; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:26:55 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 09:27:45 +0900 From: Hidetoshi Yokota User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julien Laganier References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: mext@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] IETF-81 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, 07 Jul 2011 00:28:34 -0000 Hi Julien, WG mailing list sometimes leads to a lengthy discussion, which creates misunderstandings and frustration that could be avoided if it was discussed in a F2F meeting. Urgency is one important aspect but mutual understanding is another good aspect of F2F meeting. It is pity to miss such a precious opportunity for nothing in spite of a couple of very interesting I-Ds awaiting a good discussion... -- Hidetoshi (2011/07/06 23:31), Julien Laganier wrote: > Hidetoshi, > > If WG mailing list on a given topic doesn' t happen in a timely > fashion, I would suggest that either people are not interested in the > topic, or it's not urgent to them. If a topic isn't urgent for > people, then IMHO giving them face-to-face time isn't urgent either. > > --julien > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Hidetoshi Yokota wrote: >> Hi Julien, >> >> WG mailing list is the base of the discussion, but sometimes it takes very >> long time to proceed, by which it loses timeliness. Network-initiated flow >> mobility or Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) come from urgent needs and >> IETF has the reputation of responding to such needs in a timely manner. F2F >> meeting is generally more efficient than ML discussion and effective for the >> chairs to progress the standards process. I believe that ML discussion and >> F2F meeting are the two wheels of moving I-Ds forward and we shouldn't miss >> the opportunity of F2F meetings, which happen only three times in a year. >> >> Regards, >> -- >> Hidetoshi >> >> (2011/07/06 0:29), Julien Laganier wrote: >>> >>> Dirk and Hidetoshi, >>> >>> Face to face meeting time should IMHO primarily be used to resolve >>> issues that cannot be resolved on the WG mailing list. As of now I do >>> not see any, hence the absence of a MEXT WG meeting. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> --julien >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM, wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need >>>> more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and >>>> potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list. >>>> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/? >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Dirk >>>> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>> Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Hidetoshi Yokota >>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 >>>> An: mext@ietf.org >>>> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 >>>> >>>> Hi Julien and all, >>>> >>>> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of >>>> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to >>>> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got >>>> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting >>>> will be needed. >>>> >>>> Please take a look at the following I-D: >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance for your support, >>>> -- >>>> Hidetoshi >>>> >>>> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >>>>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >>>>> >>>>> --julien& marcelo >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dmm mailing list >>>> dmm@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Sun Jul 10 03:17:43 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 BA04A21F8685 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:17:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.171 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.171 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 8eAM8jfGHeGF for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:17:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e0c:1:1599::10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8A521F85A4 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD0294007A for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:17:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E197C32.1080106@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:17:22 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmm@ietf.org References: <7hwJ7VBC.1310204655.9477880.karagian@ewi.utwente.nl> <4E187072.30902@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4E187072.30902@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110709-1, 09/07/2011), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [dmm] IETF-81 vehicular 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: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:17:43 -0000 [Excuses if this is not in interest to DMM] Hello, I am interested to meet and discuss vehicular topics for IETF in Quebec. Groups identified until now: AUTOCONF (DHCP), MANET (AODV, OLSR), MEXT/MIP4 (MIP), DMM (not WG), IPv6 (VIN topic). Drafts: draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00.txt, October 2009. draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req-02, Jan. 2009. draft-karagiannis-traffic-safety-requirements-02.txt, Feb. 2010. draft-wakikawa-roll-invehicle-reqs-00.txt, May 2008. draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01.txt, Feb. 2011. draft-petrescu-mip4-tuntype-change-00.txt, March 2011. draft-uehara-dtnrg-decentralized-probe-message-00.txt, Nov. 2010. draft-uehara-dtnrg-decentralized-probe-transport-00, Nov. 2010 draft-rosen-ecrit-ecall-04.txt, March 2010. draft-singh-simple-vehicle-info, July 2007. draft-sijeon-mext-nemo-pmip6-00, Oct. 2010. draft-bauer-mext-aero-solspace, Sep. 2009. draft-bauer-mext-aero-topology, Sep. 2009. draft-bernardos-mext-aero-nemo-ro-sol-analysis, Nov. 2008. Alex Le 09/07/2011 17:14, Charles E. Perkins a écrit : > > Hello folks, > > I think that vehicular networking discussions could be > at least initiated in the [manet] working group. > AODV and OLSR have been adapted for vehicular, and > much more could be done there. Mesh has also been > discussed in [manet]. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > On 7/9/2011 2:44 AM, Georgios Karagiannis wrote: >> Hi Dirk, Hi Alexandru >> >> I am also interested in having a f2f meeting in Quebec to discuss >> vehicular topics! >> >> As I already understood, this meeting does not need to be seen as a MEXT >> meeting. >> >> Best regards, >> Georgios >> >> On 7/4/2011, "Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de" >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should >>> need more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of >>> MEXT and potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex >>> on this list. >>> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in >>> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/? >>> >>> Best regards >>> Dirk >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag >>> von Hidetoshi Yokota >>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 >>> An: mext@ietf.org >>> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 >>> >>> Hi Julien and all, >>> >>> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of >>> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to >>> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got >>> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting >>> will be needed. >>> >>> Please take a look at the following I-D: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your support, >>> -- >>> Hidetoshi >>> >>> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >>>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >>>> >>>> --julien& marcelo >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > From goodzi@gmail.com Thu Jul 14 03:44:54 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 BEF2821F8A30 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:44:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 jGgBOSy0pS8i for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C9221F89F0 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so71214eye.31 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:44:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=mQEmmx0DVgCUu4xyA4u1hjHa525Z16HR143NOv+X3eI=; b=UZDoO6uybZxZDKbkSj3C6fqeV0MKJdLhUcxE5qOkiwvq90Aav8DaMszdejrXASiEt4 f6xCtOgdEV28kkWhWtDaDePT7cGhvmExrldTu3nRl4tX7KitMMF/HMUACFaPcf+UUVLx dANVyDl+vBa2naIGLxugQsMIR2cXFvnTpWMgo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.188.131 with SMTP id a3mr710914een.219.1310640288945; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.53.2 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:44:48 +0200 Message-ID: From: Bokor Laszlo To: dmm Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52be6ebd9d4ce04a805388d Subject: [dmm] novel research article about DMM 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, 14 Jul 2011 10:44:54 -0000 --bcaec52be6ebd9d4ce04a805388d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Folks, please let me advertise you a research paper in the area of DMM and future flat mobile networks: Title: Evaluation of two integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra Flat Architecture using SIP, IEEE 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols ACM link: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3D1975468 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005 I hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you will provide us with feedbacks on our work. Best regards, goodzi -- L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK) Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307 web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl --bcaec52be6ebd9d4ce04a805388d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Folks,

please let me advertise you a research paper in the area= of DMM and future flat mobile networks:

Title: Evaluation of two in= tegrated signalling schemes for the Ultra Flat Architecture using SIP, IEEE= 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols
ACM link: http:= //portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3D1975468
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2= 011.02.005

I hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you w= ill provide us with feedbacks on our work.

Best regards,
goodzi
--
L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR
Budapest University of Technology and Econo= mics (BME)
Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)
= Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307
web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl
--bcaec52be6ebd9d4ce04a805388d-- From Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Thu Jul 14 08:31:29 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 41C9121F8787; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:31:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ohR5dEMk-UNZ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3679721F8753; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he111629.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.21]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 14 Jul 2011 17:28:37 +0200 Received: from HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.4.206]) by HE111629.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:28:23 +0200 From: To: , Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:28:21 +0200 Thread-Topic: [dmm] novel research article about DMM Thread-Index: AcxCE5As9/JDVdBNRROMeMB5aX96rgAJujOA Message-ID: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032HE113484emea1_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: netext@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmm] novel research article about DMM 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, 14 Jul 2011 15:31:29 -0000 --_000_05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032HE113484emea1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear goodzi, from the abstract and figures available at the links you provided it seems = to me that PMIP and HIP achieve scores of +/- 1 regarding deployment, secur= ity, performance, and objective (whatever this means) ('nearly same perform= ance, but HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under evaluation crit= eria due to stronger security and fewer functional modules to deploy') - bu= t I can't draw any conclusions for further extensions ... especially toward= s various DMM proposals as outlined in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 or/and http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-00.txt Would it be possible to extend your analysis method also to such new approa= ches under discussion? Best regards Dirk ________________________________ Von: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Boko= r Laszlo Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juli 2011 12:45 An: dmm Betreff: [dmm] novel research article about DMM Dear Folks, please let me advertise you a research paper in the area of DMM and future = flat mobile networks: Title: Evaluation of two integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra Flat A= rchitecture using SIP, IEEE 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols ACM link: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3D1975468 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005 I hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you will = provide us with feedbacks on our work. Best regards, goodzi -- L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK) Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307 web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl --_000_05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032HE113484emea1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear goodzi,
from the abstract and figures available at the = links you=20 provided it seems to me that PMIP and HIP achieve scores of +/- 1 regarding= =20 deployment, security, performance, and objective (whatever this means)=20 (= 'nearly same performance, = but=20 HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under evaluation criteria due t= o=20 stronger security and fewer functional modules to deploy')=20 - but I can't draw = any=20 conclusions for further extensions ... especially towards various DMM propo= sals=20 as outlined in

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 

or/and

http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-0= 0.txt

Would it be possible to extend your analysis met= hod=20 also to such new=20 approaches under discussion?
 
Best regards
Dirk

Von: dmm-bounces@ietf.org=20 [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Bokor=20 Laszlo
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juli 2011 12:45
An:=20 dmm
Betreff: [dmm] novel research article about=20 DMM

Dear Folks,

please let me advertise you a research paper = in=20 the area of DMM and future flat mobile networks:

Title: Evaluation o= f two=20 integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra Flat Architecture using SIP, IE= EE=20 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols
ACM link: http://portal.acm.= org/citation.cfm?id=3D1975468
DOI:=20 http://dx.doi.org/1= 0.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005

I=20 hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you will pr= ovide=20 us with feedbacks on our work.

Best=20 regards,
goodzi

--
L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR
Budapest University of= =20 Technology and Economics (BME)
Department of Telecommunications (HIT) -= =20 Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)
Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax:=20 +36-1-463-3307
web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl --_000_05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032HE113484emea1_-- From goodzi@gmail.com Fri Jul 15 03:57:56 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 BD59C21F8545; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:57:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 vByFmc0vnNAK; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961EF21F85DE; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so1171998vxi.31 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:57:50 -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=Zr2Qxl41GeG5rHDSJZzE5Vf/AMuRhIDluBMD+aRsJ4k=; b=wiiL6Qdjkg0vh1Vs7/Hfiiigf1GKUEcM1PrjljBrBMYxyG/p33X3zsRX37rJryURDw bntbC5b7ht6MzAsLLZaNzkxoyeoqW698xLQcFN4rA/84K/qMtSR+xLVyIQ+CTjBwajwc 43ZA8nXzwLK/KkgUTZ+HTbdml0IvGszzRyZl8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.88.76 with SMTP id be12mr3607635vdb.366.1310727470703; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.165.233 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:57:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:57:50 +0200 Message-ID: From: Bokor Laszlo To: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f35e649e35004a819851b Cc: netext@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmm] novel research article about DMM 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, 15 Jul 2011 10:57:56 -0000 --20cf307f35e649e35004a819851b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Dirk, yes, we are planning to extend our analysis to new approaches and schemes not yet examined. In this matter it would be great if you could point on some particular schemes which are worth dealing with from the WG's point of view. Best regards, goodzi -- L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK) Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307 web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl 2011/7/14 > ** > Dear goodzi, > from the abstract and figures available at the links you provided it seem= s > to me that PMIP and HIP achieve scores of +/- 1 regarding deployment, > security, performance, and objective (whatever this means) ('nearly same > performance, but HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under > evaluation criteria due to stronger security and fewer functional modules= to > deploy') - but I can't draw any conclusions for further extensions ... > especially towards various DMM proposals as outlined in > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 > > or/and > > ** > *http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-00.txt*= > Would it be possible to extend your analysis method also to such new > approaches under discussion? > > Best regards > Dirk > > ------------------------------ > *Von:* dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] *Im Auftrag von > *Bokor Laszlo > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 14. Juli 2011 12:45 > *An:* dmm > *Betreff:* [dmm] novel research article about DMM > > Dear Folks, > > please let me advertise you a research paper in the area of DMM and futur= e > flat mobile networks: > > Title: Evaluation of two integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra Flat > Architecture using SIP, IEEE 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols > ACM link: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3D1975468 > DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005 > > I hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you wil= l > provide us with feedbacks on our work. > > Best regards, > goodzi > > -- > L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR > Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) > Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK) > Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307 > web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl > --20cf307f35e649e35004a819851b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Dirk,

yes, we are planning to extend our analysis to new approa= ches and schemes not yet examined. In this matter it would be great if you = could point on some particular schemes which are worth dealing with from th= e WG's point of view.

Best regards,
goodzi

--
L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR
Budapest Unive= rsity of Technology and Economics (BME)
Department of Telecommunications= (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)
Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-= 463-3307
web: http://w= ww.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl

2011/7/14 <Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de>
Dear goodzi,
from the abstract and figures available at the lin= ks you=20 provided it seems to me that PMIP and HIP achieve scores of +/- 1 regarding= =20 deployment, security, performance, and objective (whatever this means)=20 ('nearl= y same performance, but=20 HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under evaluation criteria due t= o=20 stronger security and fewer functional modules to deploy'<= span>)=20 - but I can'= ;t draw any=20 conclusions for further extensions ... especially towards various DMM propo= sals=20 as outlined in
Would= it be possible to extend your analysis method=20 also to such=A0new=20 approaches=A0under discussion?
=A0
Best regards
Dirk

Von: dmm-bounces@ietf.org=20 [mailto:dmm-bounc= es@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Bokor=20 Laszlo
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juli 2011 12:45
An:=20 dmm
Betreff: [dmm] novel research article about=20 DMM

Dear Folks,

please let me advertise you a research paper = in=20 the area of DMM and future flat mobile networks:

Title: Evaluation o= f two=20 integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra Flat Architecture using SIP, IE= EE=20 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols
ACM link: http://portal.acm.org/citat= ion.cfm?id=3D1975468
DOI:=20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005

I=20 hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you will pr= ovide=20 us with feedbacks on our work.

Best=20 regards,
goodzi

--
L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR
Budapest University of= =20 Technology and Economics (BME)
Department of Telecommunications (HIT) -= =20 Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)
Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax:=20 +36-1-463-3307
web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl

--20cf307f35e649e35004a819851b-- From maxpassion@gmail.com Tue Jul 26 13:16:40 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 6D27811E8099 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:16:40 -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 UOHrehSP7YhX for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 574C311E80A0 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so673299gwb.31 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:16:39 -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 :content-type; bh=yK5SksfK89YEWYYR2H8qedGvooyU1CrlFesRu5NKhOo=; b=d0Jq+5uaemBVH/CEurxAKODNx1dw71VKWd73UzSKGd3XGsgDc5T60H/m4//zvaN/KM 9BFs5WThce7SZkhSOK7aw+I7163FkrYu3HdMLU0j/uAVjb1SFmn5zjJRSD3iGqPx8Rps TF+65LbbaiSIiUCFC2SP5n5DE5GTrsPI3T9S4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.117.93 with SMTP id p29mr5927078ibq.179.1311711398770; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.113.145 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:16:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E2ED841.50604@earthlink.net> References: <4E2ED841.50604@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:16:37 +0800 Message-ID: From: liu dapeng To: dmm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [dmm] Fwd: [MEXT] [mext] discussion group Wednesday morning 9:00-11:30am, room 303AB 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: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:16:40 -0000 FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Charles E. Perkins" Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:07:45 -0700 Subject: [MEXT] [mext] discussion group Wednesday morning 9:00-11:30am, room 303AB To: mext Hello folks, Basavaraj Patil and I have arranged a room to discuss topics of interest for MEXT, with emphasis on DMM. The meeting will take place Wednesday in room 303AB from 9:00-11:30am,. Here is a tentative agenda: 1. Discussion of DMM I-Ds and topic (60 mins) 2. Enhancements to (DS)MIP6 to meet deployment and 4G+ architecture needs (60 mins) 3. Anything else that people have in mind. Regards, Charlie P. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu From charliep@computer.org Tue Jul 26 13:46:14 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 86EDE11E80B2 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:46:14 -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 8RWBqUwg8f40 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:46:14 -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 5773011E80AF for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.83.71] by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QloW3-0006nH-Kb; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:46:12 -0400 Message-ID: <4E2F2791.5080503@computer.org> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:46:09 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmm References: <4E2ED841.50604@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad861c0834f3e1a690c8b67782314eb43fa7350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 130.129.83.71 Subject: Re: [dmm] Fwd: [MEXT] [mext] discussion group Wednesday morning 9:00-11:30am, room 303AB 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: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:46:14 -0000 Hello folks, It has been suggested that this mailing list should be shut down. Discussion should be submitted to the [mext] mailing list instead of to the [dmm] mailing list. Since DMM is now a charter item in [mext] WG, that is where the discussion belongs. Worse, discussion on this list does not immediately show up on the [mext] chairs radar, which could be one reason that we do not have a [mext] meeting scheduled here in Quebec. Regards, Charlie P. On 7/26/2011 1:16 PM, liu dapeng wrote: > FYI > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Charles E. Perkins" > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:07:45 -0700 > Subject: [MEXT] [mext] discussion group Wednesday morning > 9:00-11:30am, room 303AB > To: mext > > > Hello folks, > > Basavaraj Patil and I have arranged a room to discuss > topics of interest for MEXT, with emphasis on DMM. > > The meeting will take place Wednesday in room 303AB > from 9:00-11:30am,. Here is a tentative agenda: > > 1. Discussion of DMM I-Ds and topic (60 mins) > 2. Enhancements to (DS)MIP6 to meet deployment and > 4G+ architecture needs (60 mins) > 3. Anything else that people have in mind. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > >