Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC starts for draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-03

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:55:56 +0300

Just a reminder. There has been zero WGLC reviews so far.. 

- Jouni

On Mar 20, 2013, at 7:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> This mail starts a two week WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-03.
> The issues, even editorials, should be recorded into the Issue Tracker
> for a control tracking whether everything has been addressed. We
> require minimum three reviews. The more the better, though.
> 
> The WGLC ends on Wednesday 3rd April.
> 
> - Jouni & Julien

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 14:58:56 -0500

Hi all,

If Section 4.7 is removed, I am willing to support this call.

The reason: it is immature to say anything on this issue even as a should.

Regards,

Behcet

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>wrote:

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

---

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:26:09 +0100

Hi Behcet and all,

With regards to what you said, I believe it was already answered several
times in the list while it was made.

Regards,

Seil

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Behcet
Sarikaya
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 8:59 PM
To: Jouni Korhonen
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC starts for draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-03

Hi all,

Regards,

Behcet

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
wrote:

- Jouni

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 02:34:41 +0000

Hi Seil,

What is the issue with Section 4.7?

Do we need to modify it, or is a requirement related multicast excluded from what the DMM WG needs to focus on?

Best regards,

Georgios

________________________________
Van: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] namens Seil Jeon [[email-masked]]
Verzonden: woensdag 3 april 2013 22:26
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Onderwerp: Re: [DMM] WGLC starts for draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-03

Hi Behcet and all,

With regards to what you said, I believe it was already answered several times in the list while it was made.

Regards,

Seil

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 8:59 PM
To: Jouni Korhonen
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC starts for draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-03

Hi all,

Regards,

Behcet

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

- Jouni

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

---

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 08:31:31 +0000

I do not have a strong opinion on 4.7, but adding such requirement
came from Multimob. Now you propose removing this requirement again.
Does it mean you do not want to have it in at all? If yes, why?

Another option is that the Multimob group proposes alternative text
to be more concrete about a multicast requirement according to the
Multimob group's view how this should be covered.

marco

>-----Original Message-----
>Sent: Mittwoch, 3. April 2013 21:59
>To: Jouni Korhonen

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:41:43 +0300

Behcet,

You know very well why the Section 4.7 got inserted into the
document in the first place. If you have specific issues with
the current text, point those out and propose modifications.

- Jouni

On Apr 3, 2013, at 10:58 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:45:31 +0300

Folk,

Due the lack of feedback, the I-D did not pass the WGLC. We'll
initiate another one soon. 

- Jouni

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 09:23:23 +0300

Folks,

I hope you as a WG realise we are stuck with the next steps
and possible future work/rechartering etc until we get some
of the existing milestones completed. That involves:

1) getting requirements out of the WG
2) getting the gap analysis into the state that we can
   really pinpoint the gaps that cannot be solved with
   current deployment practises

Recruiting people outside the (plentiful) authors to do a
proper review (i.e., a bit more challenging than a one liner)
should not be an overwhelming task.. The DMM list itself has
795 members. 

- Jouni & Julien

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:11:00 -0700

> of the existing milestones completed. That involves:

FWIW, the document looks good to me. I know the WGLC has ended
though, and I haven't followed the discussions in the wg as
closely as I should, so I don't know how well it matches the
view of the group.

Stig

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:10:46 -0500

Hi Marco,

The requirement did not come from Multimob.
Multimob was discussing DMM multicast and then some people said maybe this
should be discussed in dmm. Only individual opinions were expressed.

Then there started some discussions on dmm regarding adding multicast
requirements.

It seems like the final product, i.e. Section 4.7 contains a lot of text I
can easily object with my chair hat on or off. I explained these in my
previous mail.

Now, after so much discussion, we could come up with this very
controversial text, my suggestion would be to remove it, why not?

I believe multicast is a distraction to dmm at this moment.

Hope this clarifies.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:02:23 -0400

> I believe multicast is a distraction to dmm at this moment.

I am curious as to why you call it a distraction.  It seems to me that 
having multicast support considered at the beginning of the process is 
much better than trying to bolt it on after the fact.  That is the 
reason that I suggested that DMM-related multicast be discussed in DMM.

Could you explain why multicast should not be considered by DMM?

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:05:32 -0700

> reason that I suggested that DMM-related multicast be discussed in DMM.

This is why I (and I believe a few other people) wanted this in the
requirements document.

Is your objection that multicast is mentioned at all, or the wording
of the section?

Stig

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:22:58 +0300

My take on this is that if we leave the multicast requirements out
(that are very brief already) is an ostrich approach.. pretending
there are no multicast to take into account. Having the requirements
does not mean we spend all effort dedicated to multicast but at 
minimum we need to ensure the possible protocol design allows easy
inclusion of multicast at some point of time. It is just a basis
for good protocol design, not relying on a patchwork later on.

- Jouni (as an individual)