From nobody Fri Jan 8 04:54:31 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB54A1B29A7 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 04:54:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.983 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K-NXSWna7nHu for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 04:54:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC8C81B29A3 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 04:54:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id u08CsPxG004170 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:54:25 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1FB9F2050B3 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:01:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E862050A1 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:01:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id u08CsOm8012685 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:54:25 +0100 To: dmm@ietf.org References: <56719207.7000604@gmail.com> <1450439102.11602.25.camel@it.uc3m.es> <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> From: Alexandre Petrescu Message-ID: <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:54:24 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 12:54:29 -0000 Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a écrit : > > Behcet, > > Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic > conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 > maintenance since these protocol families are already past their > prime time as “hot research topics". Looking at the existing charter > I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can > let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. Jouni I can agree with you in general. But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations very important in some places including where I work. They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly protocol and implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the corrections have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations thrive where WG cares little. a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged and does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed publicly?. Alex > > - Jouni > > >> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya >> wrote: >> >> Hi Jouni, all, >> >> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no >> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find >> their places in the conferences or journals. >> >> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as >> well? >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano >> wrote: >>> Hi Jouni, all, >>> >>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>> >>> Carlos >>> >>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>> >>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough >>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the >>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out >>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>> >>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of >>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>> >>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ 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 > > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > From nobody Fri Jan 8 06:50:42 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2AF1A89FB for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:50:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PLB0QcVPttLU for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:50:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from boipeva.ensmp.fr (boipeva.ensmp.fr [194.214.158.136]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C746E1A89BB for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:50:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.26] (vir78-2-82-247-222-224.fbx.proxad.net [82.247.222.224]) (authenticated bits=0) by boipeva.ensmp.fr (8.15.2/8.15.1/JMMC-22/Oct/2013) with ESMTPSA id u08EoXZT018227 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:50:33 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Thierry Ernst In-Reply-To: <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:50:31 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> References: <56719207.7000604@gmail.com> <1450439102.11602.25.camel@it.uc3m.es> <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com> To: Alexandre Petrescu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) X-Miltered: at boipeva.ensmp.fr with ID 568FCCB9.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Auth: USER-ID thierry.ernst X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 568FCCB9.000 from vir78-2-82-247-222-224.fbx.proxad.net/vir78-2-82-247-222-224.fbx.proxad.net/82.247.222.224/[192.168.1.26]/ Archived-At: Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:50:38 -0000 Hi Alex, all, My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it=E2=80=99s fine to work = on MIP6 improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I = totally agree. And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in = MIP6 (and the related suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in = the standard track. It has been too long since we last work on those and = now it is certainly right to do it.=20 So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the work, if = not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF.=20 Regards, Thierry.=20 > Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu = a =C3=A9crit : >=20 >=20 >=20 > Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a =C3=A9crit : >>=20 >> Behcet, >>=20 >> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 >> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their >> prime time as =E2=80=9Chot research topics". Looking at the existing = charter >> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can >> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. >=20 > Jouni I can agree with you in general. >=20 > But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations very = important in some places including where I work. >=20 > They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly protocol = and implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the = corrections have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. >=20 > Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations thrive = where WG cares little. >=20 > a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged and = does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed = publicly?. >=20 > Alex >=20 >>=20 >> - Jouni >>=20 >>=20 >>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>=20 >>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no >>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find >>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>>=20 >>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as >>> well? >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>>=20 >>> Behcet >>>=20 >>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>=20 >>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>>=20 >>>> Carlos >>>>=20 >>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>> Folks, >>>>>=20 >>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>=20 >>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough >>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the >>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out >>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>>=20 >>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of >>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>>=20 >>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list >> dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm From nobody Fri Jan 8 07:06:33 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0B31A8A4F for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:06:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HRgyMwIBeVTb for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:06:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 001231A8A4D for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:06:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4557; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1452265590; x=1453475190; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=4R+IbUPeX1vjNwWWBWfQWbdH8JfLEDvlx8cPlbpH8jo=; b=hoUutD2CX/BMt2ueqikfO6Ho6LtQg/E8lxoGTS/Gy7udZ1pUwWWWi29+ 69HPnhLVKlaStQ3RJtCmIN9Zs3njAz2I9ja+kyO1KJjQTe4W8xBJzL7/6 2+AL2CbAnZnyOT5GFxd9Sn2gEFatarjOnMC2HW+c5RBmX9xnLHvMEkNdA Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ANAgB3z49W/4ENJK1egzpSbYhZs0kBD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFkGAqFbQKBHjgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEDAQEBARpLBgsFCwIBCBguIQYLJQI?= =?us-ascii?q?EDgUZiAEDCggOvlwNgnYBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEUBIZWgg+CcIJPg?= =?us-ascii?q?gaDTIEbBYVckTEBix1CgXiBXIRDiFyGcYNqg3IBIAEBQoQKcoVhAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,539,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="65414481" Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Jan 2016 15:06:29 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-007.cisco.com (xch-aln-007.cisco.com [173.36.7.17]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u08F6Tv9029035 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:06:29 GMT Received: from xch-aln-007.cisco.com (173.36.7.17) by XCH-ALN-007.cisco.com (173.36.7.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:06:29 -0600 Received: from xch-aln-007.cisco.com ([173.36.7.17]) by XCH-ALN-007.cisco.com ([173.36.7.17]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:06:29 -0600 From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" To: Thierry Ernst Thread-Topic: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls Thread-Index: AQHRShPAQYf3rkfEFkCXY+6ZA2e4d57yGEWA//+f4ao= Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:06:29 +0000 Message-ID: <002F368E-9B6D-4D90-86A9-DC85C015B456@cisco.com> References: <56719207.7000604@gmail.com> <1450439102.11602.25.camel@it.uc3m.es> <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com>,<1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "dmm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 15:06:32 -0000 Hi Thierry, DMM has the charter for the NEMO protocol maintenance. So, it is the right= group and you should be able to bring maintenance and deployment related e= xtensions to this group.=20 Regards Sri > On Jan 8, 2016, at 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst wrote: >=20 >=20 > Hi Alex, all, >=20 > My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it=92s fine to work on MIP6 = improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I totally agree= . And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and the rela= ted suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard track. It = has been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly right= to do it.=20 >=20 > So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the work, if n= ot I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF.=20 >=20 > Regards, > Thierry.=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Le 8 janv. 2016 =E0 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu a =E9crit : >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a =E9crit : >>>=20 >>> Behcet, >>>=20 >>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 >>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their >>> prime time as =93hot research topics". Looking at the existing charter >>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can >>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. >>=20 >> Jouni I can agree with you in general. >>=20 >> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations very imp= ortant in some places including where I work. >>=20 >> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly protocol an= d implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the correcti= ons have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. >>=20 >> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations thrive wh= ere WG cares little. >>=20 >> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged and do= es not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed publicly?. >>=20 >> Alex >>=20 >>>=20 >>> - Jouni >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya >>>> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>=20 >>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no >>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find >>>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>>>=20 >>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as >>>> well? >>>>=20 >>>> Regards, >>>>=20 >>>> Behcet >>>>=20 >>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>=20 >>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Carlos >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough >>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the >>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out >>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of >>>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>> _______________________________________________ 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 > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm From nobody Fri Jan 8 08:40:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E811B2A36 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:40:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zTFZgs6GYTWn for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:39:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x231.google.com (mail-pa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C67A81B2A35 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:39:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-x231.google.com with SMTP id yy13so192118805pab.3 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:39:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PFkAoc8T5IMoRq8HFr38Q1M9Pn+qxUhbpuMIjGCwbqQ=; b=jtLoP8rP39jXKIli6sm8fJMlfoE/nI365QTsGpHkfFsbpyOn/DT6hUTVw/Yot4e1Zi AOL3bS7EaKPz6sxsPKNRknHeIeHgwv5S9W4+ZzZMRKOHkVwDr4YNdy39PGwuw4jIUK+y ZHR4OLIolVBJ4NpdTqsd3xEqDDrxIhbphOqdrpG+ZUhdHJTKT02vDJROX4Gil5YhiERB iLIsz8LIF6a9kwaTiQ+hFWw1tSZWwfPPnny+BqTwW0NdkyCtShwpnBhJCFQahfeMfLMS p3Nky7J+BMlrVfg4ugOocpQwbEzzqRMAc35wkDw6MOQfpLbUCHtUq5nCt4qnNL6vAI55 Rquw== X-Received: by 10.66.184.206 with SMTP id ew14mr12894046pac.117.1452271198460; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:39:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.16.96.35] ([216.31.219.19]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m87sm5885710pfi.47.2016.01.08.08.39.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:39:57 -0800 (PST) To: Thierry Ernst , Alexandre Petrescu References: <56719207.7000604@gmail.com> <1450439102.11602.25.camel@it.uc3m.es> <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com> <1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> From: Jouni Korhonen Message-ID: <568FE65C.4020008@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:39:56 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 16:40:00 -0000 As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented extensions of the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue within IETF. Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here. - Jouni 1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti: > > Hi Alex, all, > > My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it’s fine to work on MIP6 improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I totally agree. And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and the related suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard track. It has been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly right to do it. > > So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the work, if not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF. > > Regards, > Thierry. > > > >> Le 8 janv. 2016 à 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit : >> >> >> >> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a écrit : >>> >>> Behcet, >>> >>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 >>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their >>> prime time as “hot research topics". Looking at the existing charter >>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can >>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. >> >> Jouni I can agree with you in general. >> >> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations very important in some places including where I work. >> >> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly protocol and implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the corrections have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. >> >> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations thrive where WG cares little. >> >> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged and does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed publicly?. >> >> Alex >> >>> >>> - Jouni >>> >>> >>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>> >>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no >>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find >>>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>>> >>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as >>>> well? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Behcet >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>> >>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>>> >>>>> Carlos >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>> Folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>> >>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough >>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the >>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out >>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of >>>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ 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 > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > From nobody Fri Jan 8 09:15:53 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4CB31B2A5D for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:15:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yH-CIWQ9jjwp for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:15:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x231.google.com (mail-qg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75F2C1B2A8C for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:15:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 6so278589059qgy.1 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:15:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=U+JBymc78N++Lq4pbFws8oL7QNkr5uzGWyPhnTEYbnc=; b=WouqJ8jSVtgfOQd28m3ezZ/V2tE8Y8zk1qkVkyXTbPwsPq6QJKAeOsZYagyjCL4XdJ p39wI5NP72fVkVURha1/iFsp23MyS0HoXcagPnqx9XGJvI82uzEcj89BFaigQfrA4VGn bOo0KEo9TncbVq2A91Iib3ltmJ53Win4aYTWtWQt0CoMeccIZhohcldTwic7Yz6ZvOtV YpfPQU4Pt7j6AoM5sM/gCbXiGhd2Z4GN9AsoITygmmMunE4AqqDQRdVciu+YX9MaU2KY VwleUlKZ5ZJy9H4ts4f5N8qZd3YAs1E317654DI9u6ql8Dgpr+WaE/JBkfbgCVU5Sc96 8g8w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.166.198 with SMTP id m189mr11883561qhm.35.1452273340660; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:15:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.55.136.198 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:15:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <568FE65C.4020008@gmail.com> References: <56719207.7000604@gmail.com> <1450439102.11602.25.camel@it.uc3m.es> <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com> <1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> <568FE65C.4020008@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:15:40 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Jouni Korhonen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: "dmm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 17:15:46 -0000 On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen wr= ote: > > As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented extensions = of > the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue within IETF= . > Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here. > Why not ISE? For both MIPv6 and MIPv4. Of course you may not be able modify existing RFCs but just write it as a new draft and do not bother dmm where future protocol work is supposed to be done. Behcet > - Jouni > > > 1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti: >> >> >> Hi Alex, all, >> >> My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it=E2=80=99s fine to work o= n MIP6 >> improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I totally ag= ree. >> And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and the rel= ated >> suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard track. It h= as >> been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly right = to >> do it. >> >> So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the work, if >> not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF. >> >> Regards, >> Thierry. >> >> >> >>> Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu >>> a =C3=A9crit : >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a =C3=A9crit : >>>> >>>> >>>> Behcet, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >>>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 >>>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their >>>> prime time as =E2=80=9Chot research topics". Looking at the existing c= harter >>>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can >>>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. >>> >>> >>> Jouni I can agree with you in general. >>> >>> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations very >>> important in some places including where I work. >>> >>> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly protocol a= nd >>> implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the correc= tions >>> have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. >>> >>> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations thrive >>> where WG cares little. >>> >>> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged and >>> does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed >>> publicly?. >>> >>> Alex >>> >>>> >>>> - Jouni >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>> >>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no >>>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find >>>>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>>>> >>>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as >>>>> well? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Behcet >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Carlos >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough >>>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the >>>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out >>>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of >>>>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 nobody Fri Jan 8 10:34:44 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D452D1B2AEE for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:34:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WsJGbdD4YRqO for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:34:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84E271B2AEC for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:34:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id n128so13137658pfn.3 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 10:34:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5Dw7ElHzm+pYSJ8nutFmeQdqUZNmARz3YqLLaxq4DMI=; b=eiFqGp0IdXtqw97u5ayD9suIc/SsaAM7iO9dWyNeW8ni04/ZXjzPESQwpbHK2GjGtr hm6DuIbPFbBcAgQONzO/HWOGi4AoUel2rswEenaHkmAE0ClHOoQ5s9zMUVBk9sFx6VFI e2Tm1et602nVX7V92+pKYk1EmAIRnoZx1zfcaiiFNZqt1p9sRDt3FglAvWT0UGb2/w0Z 61FWgaQ5mVPE7we7Y3wdizIXQKEA1zDSJSuQohkYWeZZF2YdfuC0SjpJk/yobAZ6gphY COPyrH15IDh70DLlFwoOmgGcfWvnb09RryC96mGAw8Uj6my60lcNdVbt1/1PIi1e+PHu xGQw== X-Received: by 10.98.89.73 with SMTP id n70mr6386640pfb.68.1452278074045; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 10:34:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.111.197.86] ([166.170.39.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d21sm6323696pfj.32.2016.01.08.10.34.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 08 Jan 2016 10:34:33 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: "Jouni.nosmap" X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13C75) In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:34:32 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <58A5EBFF-CD12-4F4A-BE55-57FF9BB65E5D@gmail.com> References: <56719207.7000604@gmail.com> <1450439102.11602.25.camel@it.uc3m.es> <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com> <1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> <568FE65C.4020008@gmail.com> To: sarikaya@ieee.org Archived-At: Cc: "dmm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 18:34:37 -0000 Well one can always pursue ISE/AD sponsored track if one so feels like. Just saying there are options.. if one desires to go through the WG process= DMM has provisions for Mobile IPv6 protocol family maintenance work.=20 Jouni Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos.. > Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti 8.1.2016 kello 9.15: >=20 >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen w= rote: >>=20 >> As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented extensions o= f >> the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue within IETF.= >> Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here. >=20 >=20 > Why not ISE? For both MIPv6 and MIPv4. > Of course you may not be able modify existing RFCs but just write it > as a new draft and do not bother dmm where future protocol work is > supposed to be done. >=20 > Behcet >=20 >> - Jouni >>=20 >>=20 >> 1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Hi Alex, all, >>>=20 >>> My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it=E2=80=99s fine to work o= n MIP6 >>> improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I totally ag= ree. >>> And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and the rel= ated >>> suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard track. It h= as >>> been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly right t= o >>> do it. >>>=20 >>> So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the work, if >>> not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF. >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>> Thierry. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu >>>> a =C3=A9crit : >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Behcet, >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >>>>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 >>>>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their >>>>> prime time as =E2=80=9Chot research topics". Looking at the existing c= harter >>>>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can >>>>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Jouni I can agree with you in general. >>>>=20 >>>> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations very >>>> important in some places including where I work. >>>>=20 >>>> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly protocol a= nd >>>> implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the correc= tions >>>> have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. >>>>=20 >>>> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations thrive >>>> where WG cares little. >>>>=20 >>>> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged and >>>> does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed >>>> publicly?. >>>>=20 >>>> Alex >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> - Jouni >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no >>>>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find >>>>>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as >>>>>> well? >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Carlos >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough >>>>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the >>>>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out >>>>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of >>>>>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing >>>>>>>> list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list >>>>>>> dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 From nobody Fri Jan 8 11:48:40 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9FF71B2B4C for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:48:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.15 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8OESTFbtZVDM for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:48:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x232.google.com (mail-qg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A22891AC3DB for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:48:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 6so282034231qgy.1 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:48:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HNoVA25j1/fXwHIXXqzUUrOlInPMxmxxmXH07ZPtSTc=; b=xPGqIBZjJv7JxwSh1KuCWSJRBjYyiUSVh5kh0/03lEZmeWZ3ZxIclYjV7PXdUB50hs z6eb1tdrxzGa+N06olct6ek1jdTKx8DfZQWgtAnE7zLXcr85TLvPHf6o/P/AMEXmyQq1 ko3km0vGhVqsHZd9ZkaEOcbHpBdgEldyvv9yT82K40sjhhxDU46l+DcRvLczE3jFI2p0 mKhbycDWgdsS2XtYoPCzNiGJPShJ2PLGoz7Ctawtir/uveTJUHZd64kPA7yKv+48I89I limMqapIpxu4+7JBYr3j4J7a832xIXYwOjCoMKKNzkBQN5QSkmOT8BApyXE5FMCfTBri SWEA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.142.207 with SMTP id 198mr145498604qho.77.1452282512823; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:48:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.55.136.198 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:48:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <58A5EBFF-CD12-4F4A-BE55-57FF9BB65E5D@gmail.com> References: <56719207.7000604@gmail.com> <1450439102.11602.25.camel@it.uc3m.es> <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com> <1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> <568FE65C.4020008@gmail.com> <58A5EBFF-CD12-4F4A-BE55-57FF9BB65E5D@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:48:32 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: "Jouni.nosmap" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: "dmm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 19:48:36 -0000 On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Jouni.nosmap wrot= e: > Well one can always pursue ISE/AD sponsored track if one so feels like. > > Just saying there are options.. if one desires to go through the WG proc= ess DMM has provisions for Mobile IPv6 protocol family maintenance work. > I started this thread by stating that: Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find their places in the conferences or journals. No one objected to the first point. So what is the justification for maintenance? As I said before, charter items can be changed or they do not have to be used. Behcet > Jouni > > Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos.. > >> Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti 8.1.2016 kello 9.15: >> >>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>> >>> As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented extension= s of >>> the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue within IE= TF. >>> Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here. >> >> >> Why not ISE? For both MIPv6 and MIPv4. >> Of course you may not be able modify existing RFCs but just write it >> as a new draft and do not bother dmm where future protocol work is >> supposed to be done. >> >> Behcet >> >>> - Jouni >>> >>> >>> 1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Alex, all, >>>> >>>> My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it=E2=80=99s fine to work= on MIP6 >>>> improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I totally = agree. >>>> And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and the r= elated >>>> suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard track. It= has >>>> been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly righ= t to >>>> do it. >>>> >>>> So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the work, i= f >>>> not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Thierry. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu >>>>> a =C3=A9crit : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Behcet, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >>>>>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 >>>>>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their >>>>>> prime time as =E2=80=9Chot research topics". Looking at the existing= charter >>>>>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can >>>>>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jouni I can agree with you in general. >>>>> >>>>> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations very >>>>> important in some places including where I work. >>>>> >>>>> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly protocol= and >>>>> implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the corr= ections >>>>> have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. >>>>> >>>>> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations thrive >>>>> where WG cares little. >>>>> >>>>> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged and >>>>> does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed >>>>> publicly?. >>>>> >>>>> Alex >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no >>>>>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find >>>>>>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as >>>>>>> well? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>>>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carlos >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough >>>>>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the >>>>>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out >>>>>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of >>>>>>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 nobody Sat Jan 9 03:57:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B9E1A7113 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 03:57:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t9KD3mFraQhB for ; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 03:56:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from jiboia.ensmp.fr (jiboia.ensmp.fr [194.214.158.137]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36AF71A710D for ; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 03:56:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.26] (vir78-2-82-247-222-224.fbx.proxad.net [82.247.222.224]) (authenticated bits=0) by jiboia.ensmp.fr (8.15.2/8.15.1/JMMC-22/Oct/2013) with ESMTPSA id u09BusJj007911 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 12:56:56 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Thierry Ernst In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 12:56:52 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <56719207.7000604@gmail.com> <1450439102.11602.25.camel@it.uc3m.es> <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com> <1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> <568FE65C.4020008@gmail.com> <58A5EBFF-CD12-4F4A-BE55-57FF9BB65E5D@gmail.com> To: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) X-Miltered: at jiboia.ensmp.fr with ID 5690F586.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Auth: USER-ID thierry.ernst X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5690F586.000 from vir78-2-82-247-222-224.fbx.proxad.net/vir78-2-82-247-222-224.fbx.proxad.net/82.247.222.224/[192.168.1.26]/ Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:57:00 -0000 What are protocols you think no one uses ?=20 MIPv6 and NEMOv6 needs maintenance, and probably more than than = maintenance.=20 Regards, Thierry Ernst. > Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 20:48, Behcet Sarikaya = a =C3=A9crit : >=20 > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Jouni.nosmap = wrote: >> Well one can always pursue ISE/AD sponsored track if one so feels = like. >>=20 >> Just saying there are options.. if one desires to go through the WG = process DMM has provisions for Mobile IPv6 protocol family maintenance = work. >>=20 >=20 > I started this thread by stating that: >=20 > Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no one = uses? > For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find their places in > the conferences or journals. >=20 > No one objected to the first point. >=20 > So what is the justification for maintenance? As I said before, > charter items can be changed or they do not have to be used. >=20 > Behcet >> Jouni >>=20 >> Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos.. >>=20 >>> Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti 8.1.2016 kello = 9.15: >>>=20 >>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented = extensions of >>>> the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue = within IETF. >>>> Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Why not ISE? For both MIPv6 and MIPv4. >>> Of course you may not be able modify existing RFCs but just write it >>> as a new draft and do not bother dmm where future protocol work is >>> supposed to be done. >>>=20 >>> Behcet >>>=20 >>>> - Jouni >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> 1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti: >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Hi Alex, all, >>>>>=20 >>>>> My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it=E2=80=99s fine to = work on MIP6 >>>>> improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I = totally agree. >>>>> And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and = the related >>>>> suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard = track. It has >>>>> been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly = right to >>>>> do it. >>>>>=20 >>>>> So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the = work, if >>>>> not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Thierry. >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu >>>>>> a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Behcet, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >>>>>>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 >>>>>>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their >>>>>>> prime time as =E2=80=9Chot research topics". Looking at the = existing charter >>>>>>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we = can >>>>>>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Jouni I can agree with you in general. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations = very >>>>>> important in some places including where I work. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly = protocol and >>>>>> implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the = corrections >>>>>> have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations = thrive >>>>>> where WG cares little. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged = and >>>>>> does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed >>>>>> publicly?. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Alex >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya = >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that = no >>>>>>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find >>>>>>>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 = as >>>>>>>> well? >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos = Cano >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>>>>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Carlos >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>>>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>>>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>>>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>>>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough >>>>>>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the >>>>>>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out >>>>>>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions = of >>>>>>>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing >>>>>>>>>> list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing = list >>>>>>>>> dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 From nobody Mon Jan 11 08:35:36 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A038A1A883E for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:35:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.55 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A6Eg2Nwt1hoK for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:35:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x236.google.com (mail-qg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CAC71A8A75 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:35:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-x236.google.com with SMTP id b35so276751067qge.0 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:35:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qQ03QHEpJ27/j1o3WCP0ugirvWl6oyB5fnVUP660+EM=; b=Q+U6WrUYJnmJLglun7LwUk2rWakDfYPInk4re6X0zCIkOhPnBJFp5xzjt5O4fK0w02 nRCZCnb7eykb3eqvDV56ToHznOnVJT15gK1p+vl+bpyVTtubPgZJGk4ZkbP24CnR1yTP Ob0F7re3PkDMO14bX0DenDkZ8xt6zvDi40RZfXv65QdaKcrET/c8fx82SxzGumQDmuh4 j8WrnvhriBp/Mf+XbhI3NxQfXJlayuXTYbnQ4VqBaDXow5HOrBWgwwlVs6AHCeCRY1XK 2BICpso+SPOqpHrtHwxaYL7L+vWROQWvVhD0Yvt2iOOHzHWu77IsQO5l6tBxLFmoOe8G faFA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.166.198 with SMTP id m189mr30116641qhm.35.1452530131915; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:35:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.55.136.198 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:35:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <56719207.7000604@gmail.com> <1450439102.11602.25.camel@it.uc3m.es> <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com> <1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> <568FE65C.4020008@gmail.com> <58A5EBFF-CD12-4F4A-BE55-57FF9BB65E5D@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:35:31 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Thierry Ernst Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: "dmm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:35:35 -0000 On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Thierry Ernst wrot= e: > > What are protocols you think no one uses ? > > MIPv6 and NEMOv6 needs maintenance, and probably more than than maintenan= ce. > Thierry, I meant PMIPv6 which was designed for operator networks. For MIPv6/NEMOv6, I think in Europe, some research based use is happening, to my knowledge at a very small scale. mip6 WG has been closed long time ago. I wish it were still open, that would be like in good old days. So conference papers and ISE is still my recipe. Regards, Behcet > Regards, > Thierry Ernst. > > >> Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 20:48, Behcet Sarikaya a= =C3=A9crit : >> >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Jouni.nosmap w= rote: >>> Well one can always pursue ISE/AD sponsored track if one so feels like. >>> >>> Just saying there are options.. if one desires to go through the WG pr= ocess DMM has provisions for Mobile IPv6 protocol family maintenance work. >>> >> >> I started this thread by stating that: >> >> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no one us= es? >> For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find their places in >> the conferences or journals. >> >> No one objected to the first point. >> >> So what is the justification for maintenance? As I said before, >> charter items can be changed or they do not have to be used. >> >> Behcet >>> Jouni >>> >>> Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos.. >>> >>>> Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti 8.1.2016 kello 9.15= : >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented extensi= ons of >>>>> the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue within = IETF. >>>>> Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here. >>>> >>>> >>>> Why not ISE? For both MIPv6 and MIPv4. >>>> Of course you may not be able modify existing RFCs but just write it >>>> as a new draft and do not bother dmm where future protocol work is >>>> supposed to be done. >>>> >>>> Behcet >>>> >>>>> - Jouni >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Alex, all, >>>>>> >>>>>> My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it=E2=80=99s fine to wo= rk on MIP6 >>>>>> improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I totall= y agree. >>>>>> And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and the= related >>>>>> suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard track. = It has >>>>>> been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly ri= ght to >>>>>> do it. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the work,= if >>>>>> not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Thierry. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu >>>>>>> a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Behcet, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >>>>>>>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 >>>>>>>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their >>>>>>>> prime time as =E2=80=9Chot research topics". Looking at the existi= ng charter >>>>>>>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we ca= n >>>>>>>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jouni I can agree with you in general. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations ver= y >>>>>>> important in some places including where I work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly protoc= ol and >>>>>>> implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the co= rrections >>>>>>> have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations thri= ve >>>>>>> where WG cares little. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged a= nd >>>>>>> does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed >>>>>>> publicly?. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no >>>>>>>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find >>>>>>>>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as >>>>>>>>> well? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>>>>>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Carlos >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>>>>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>>>>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>>>>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>>>>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough >>>>>>>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the >>>>>>>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out >>>>>>>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of >>>>>>>>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm From nobody Mon Jan 11 09:23:16 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C85F1A8AF4 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:23:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lg7JnPskRBaT for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:23:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from boipeva.ensmp.fr (boipeva.ensmp.fr [194.214.158.136]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3E21A8AF3 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:23:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.26] (vir78-2-82-247-222-224.fbx.proxad.net [82.247.222.224]) (authenticated bits=0) by boipeva.ensmp.fr (8.15.2/8.15.1/JMMC-22/Oct/2013) with ESMTPSA id u0BHNAhV000522 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:23:10 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Thierry Ernst In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:23:09 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7530D9D1-EBDC-47BE-B6F7-4A81C27D0F75@inria.fr> References: <56719207.7000604@gmail.com> <1450439102.11602.25.camel@it.uc3m.es> <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com> <1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> <568FE65C.4020008@gmail.com> <58A5EBFF-CD12-4F4A-BE55-57FF9BB65E5D@gmail.com> To: "dmm@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) X-Miltered: at boipeva.ensmp.fr with ID 5693E4FE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Auth: USER-ID thierry.ernst X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5693E4FE.000 from vir78-2-82-247-222-224.fbx.proxad.net/vir78-2-82-247-222-224.fbx.proxad.net/82.247.222.224/[192.168.1.26]/ Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:23:15 -0000 The purpose of conference papers is to do research, so I don=E2=80=99t = see how conferences papers would help to do =E2=80=A6 maintenance of = IETF RFCs. In addition to bug fixes, MIPv6 and NEMO need to be = progressed in the IETF hierarchy of standards. There are issues and = options to be discussed, probably even extensions; a WG must host such = work. My take is that dmm is the right candidate WG for this to happen. Regards, Thierry Ernst. > Le 11 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 17:35, Behcet Sarikaya = a =C3=A9crit : >=20 > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Thierry Ernst = wrote: >>=20 >> What are protocols you think no one uses ? >>=20 >> MIPv6 and NEMOv6 needs maintenance, and probably more than than = maintenance. >>=20 >=20 > Thierry, I meant PMIPv6 which was designed for operator networks. >=20 > For MIPv6/NEMOv6, I think in Europe, some research based use is > happening, to my knowledge at a very small scale. > mip6 WG has been closed long time ago. > I wish it were still open, that would be like in good old days. >=20 > So conference papers and ISE is still my recipe. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Behcet >> Regards, >> Thierry Ernst. >>=20 >>=20 >>> Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 20:48, Behcet Sarikaya = a =C3=A9crit : >>>=20 >>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Jouni.nosmap = wrote: >>>> Well one can always pursue ISE/AD sponsored track if one so feels = like. >>>>=20 >>>> Just saying there are options.. if one desires to go through the = WG process DMM has provisions for Mobile IPv6 protocol family = maintenance work. >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> I started this thread by stating that: >>>=20 >>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no = one uses? >>> For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find their places in >>> the conferences or journals. >>>=20 >>> No one objected to the first point. >>>=20 >>> So what is the justification for maintenance? As I said before, >>> charter items can be changed or they do not have to be used. >>>=20 >>> Behcet >>>> Jouni >>>>=20 >>>> Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos.. >>>>=20 >>>>> Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti 8.1.2016 kello = 9.15: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen = wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented = extensions of >>>>>> the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue = within IETF. >>>>>> Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here. >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Why not ISE? For both MIPv6 and MIPv4. >>>>> Of course you may not be able modify existing RFCs but just write = it >>>>> as a new draft and do not bother dmm where future protocol work is >>>>> supposed to be done. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Behcet >>>>>=20 >>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Hi Alex, all, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it=E2=80=99s fine = to work on MIP6 >>>>>>> improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I = totally agree. >>>>>>> And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and = the related >>>>>>> suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard = track. It has >>>>>>> been too long since we last work on those and now it is = certainly right to >>>>>>> do it. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the = work, if >>>>>>> not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Thierry. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu >>>>>>>> a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Behcet, >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >>>>>>>>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for = PMIPv6/MIPv6 >>>>>>>>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past = their >>>>>>>>> prime time as =E2=80=9Chot research topics". Looking at the = existing charter >>>>>>>>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think = we can >>>>>>>>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Jouni I can agree with you in general. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations = very >>>>>>>> important in some places including where I work. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly = protocol and >>>>>>>> implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of = the corrections >>>>>>>> have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations = thrive >>>>>>>> where WG cares little. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still = bugged and >>>>>>>> does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed >>>>>>>> publicly?. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya = >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols = that no >>>>>>>>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should = find >>>>>>>>>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain = mip4 as >>>>>>>>>> well? >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos = Cano >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>>>>>>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> Carlos >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>>>>>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>>>>>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>>>>>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>>>>>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is = enough >>>>>>>>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage = the >>>>>>>>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work = out >>>>>>>>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 = versions of >>>>>>>>>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing >>>>>>>>>>>> list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing = list >>>>>>>>>>> dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> dmm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm From nobody Mon Jan 11 09:47:10 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333731A87AA for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:47:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.15 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cfvPMgy2hbAg for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:47:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk0-x230.google.com (mail-qk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14F421A87A6 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:47:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id q19so173279859qke.3 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:47:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DvoDjDz+LNlDw10A0hqK5Rt35SddA0b2sLmVAS+5jeg=; b=Nh68BJHQMlGBHkBxK9kCFany5TY/2SQnAzOmf1wiqGuLutI9SbuUNiEXeYIQvTAfhT 7nMRUqzJUYEJkJEsO2MNKsO2CyMeSixJJplP4AN/vc+8Mqkn4IeLhTeccRCTDBzXs9gA r7Ic+HF6HXNznHKfjUOjCu8q7GCkCWNJzI6PXyqShS+t9O50CuDzJCRig32LtiNIQIw+ UB9t8yYfnKLEZIOkVF1fqETZLtCn86qIjw1HKOxYJjlb7Vywy0jrp7p8R2Y0ccdDnLMa +4AjJ20te4WFJDvoT4gAM4EJVWh0sTpLD5Yhwost6rLM1TQDX7PiawQlVPOEQacbp+UJ +c+Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.15.139 with SMTP id 11mr18573126qkp.50.1452534427265; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:47:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.55.136.198 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:47:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7530D9D1-EBDC-47BE-B6F7-4A81C27D0F75@inria.fr> References: <56719207.7000604@gmail.com> <1450439102.11602.25.camel@it.uc3m.es> <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com> <1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> <568FE65C.4020008@gmail.com> <58A5EBFF-CD12-4F4A-BE55-57FF9BB65E5D@gmail.com> <7530D9D1-EBDC-47BE-B6F7-4A81C27D0F75@inria.fr> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:47:07 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Thierry Ernst Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: "dmm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:47:10 -0000 On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Thierry Ernst wr= ote: > > The purpose of conference papers is to do research, so I don=E2=80=99t se= e how conferences papers would help to do =E2=80=A6 maintenance of IETF RFC= s. In addition to bug fixes, MIPv6 and NEMO need to be progressed in the IE= TF hierarchy of standards. There are issues and options to be discussed, pr= obably even extensions; a WG must host such work. My take is that dmm is th= e right candidate WG for this to happen. > I still don't see any statements from you on the real need or use. You talk as if even a BoF is needed, if yes that's what you should go for. Regards, Behcet > Regards, > Thierry Ernst. > > >> Le 11 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 17:35, Behcet Sarikaya = a =C3=A9crit : >> >> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Thierry Ernst w= rote: >>> >>> What are protocols you think no one uses ? >>> >>> MIPv6 and NEMOv6 needs maintenance, and probably more than than mainten= ance. >>> >> >> Thierry, I meant PMIPv6 which was designed for operator networks. >> >> For MIPv6/NEMOv6, I think in Europe, some research based use is >> happening, to my knowledge at a very small scale. >> mip6 WG has been closed long time ago. >> I wish it were still open, that would be like in good old days. >> >> So conference papers and ISE is still my recipe. >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >>> Regards, >>> Thierry Ernst. >>> >>> >>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 20:48, Behcet Sarikaya = a =C3=A9crit : >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Jouni.nosmap = wrote: >>>>> Well one can always pursue ISE/AD sponsored track if one so feels lik= e. >>>>> >>>>> Just saying there are options.. if one desires to go through the WG = process DMM has provisions for Mobile IPv6 protocol family maintenance work= . >>>>> >>>> >>>> I started this thread by stating that: >>>> >>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no one = uses? >>>> For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find their places in >>>> the conferences or journals. >>>> >>>> No one objected to the first point. >>>> >>>> So what is the justification for maintenance? As I said before, >>>> charter items can be changed or they do not have to be used. >>>> >>>> Behcet >>>>> Jouni >>>>> >>>>> Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos.. >>>>> >>>>>> Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti 8.1.2016 kello 9.= 15: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented exten= sions of >>>>>>> the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue withi= n IETF. >>>>>>> Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why not ISE? For both MIPv6 and MIPv4. >>>>>> Of course you may not be able modify existing RFCs but just write it >>>>>> as a new draft and do not bother dmm where future protocol work is >>>>>> supposed to be done. >>>>>> >>>>>> Behcet >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Alex, all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it=E2=80=99s fine to = work on MIP6 >>>>>>>> improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I tota= lly agree. >>>>>>>> And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and t= he related >>>>>>>> suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard track= . It has >>>>>>>> been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly = right to >>>>>>>> do it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the wor= k, if >>>>>>>> not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Thierry. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu >>>>>>>>> a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Behcet, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >>>>>>>>>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 >>>>>>>>>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their >>>>>>>>>> prime time as =E2=80=9Chot research topics". Looking at the exis= ting charter >>>>>>>>>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we = can >>>>>>>>>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jouni I can agree with you in general. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations v= ery >>>>>>>>> important in some places including where I work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly prot= ocol and >>>>>>>>> implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the = corrections >>>>>>>>> have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations th= rive >>>>>>>>> where WG cares little. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged= and >>>>>>>>> does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed >>>>>>>>> publicly?. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that = no >>>>>>>>>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find >>>>>>>>>>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 = as >>>>>>>>>>> well? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Ca= no >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>>>>>>>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>>>>>>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>>>>>>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough >>>>>>>>>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the >>>>>>>>>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out >>>>>>>>>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions = of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing >>>>>>>>>>>>> list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing li= st >>>>>>>>>>>> dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 nobody Mon Jan 11 12:55:55 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BE411A8A80 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:55:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BCB0fDCAFkbk for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:55:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DD301A9145 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:55:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-x233.google.com with SMTP id ho8so66077204pac.2 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:55:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=igCs2pzBZ0GFfx8y/LfIVlT1VDmi5KF6SkTyPfr+BPg=; b=BexrcNolijh9/HXqPW92OwOIrbTFFZyC6031tT/pzVvtbSjivbDrtDtbr8dkB5NIUl ZafmR84SkEcYiA8uy8AnM0Ui4fIiACQxA4uxtY44oBb+S5ickOLozPSqTSWwVTtymKm8 XFEj28LMdVW6M2Iavl8Mn2B4+S5d49Rr6bw53biQkkSswkL+bCH3Ba5Ta3xztPJzP/v7 zPpJYIuXrANLGVutiWMEU9q8qpSCX+N73fhbsA8F2d9VtuIVcviWohnau+z1pIsyffS5 1vtUymUT7UV175MjHeg3703jBhAKTc5gQfbWtPQzuowJzvR25kXf/LXsDQi4IYLBA6cK gIoQ== X-Received: by 10.66.90.133 with SMTP id bw5mr85868593pab.22.1452545749165; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:55:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.16.86.32] ([216.31.219.19]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id cf6sm83792195pad.41.2016.01.11.12.55.48 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:55:48 -0800 (PST) To: dmm@ietf.org References: <56719207.7000604@gmail.com> <1450439102.11602.25.camel@it.uc3m.es> <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com> <1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> <568FE65C.4020008@gmail.com> <58A5EBFF-CD12-4F4A-BE55-57FF9BB65E5D@gmail.com> <7530D9D1-EBDC-47BE-B6F7-4A81C27D0F75@inria.fr> From: Jouni Korhonen Message-ID: <569416D3.5090409@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:55:47 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:55:54 -0000 This thread is starting to sound like a broken record. We are chartered to have the maintenance responsibility of Mobile IPv6 protocol family. Once the chairs see absence of "maintenance oriented" documents that responsibility will be terminated. Till then, if someone does not like Mobile IPv6 protocol family work being done - just defer contributing. That's the natural way of aging out topics in IETF. Enough of this for now! Another data point to add here. To my (probably misguided?) understanding PMIP6 has more live deployments than MIP6 today. My understanding is that there are still operators running PMIP6 based networks and some vendors developing networking gear with PMIP6 support. - Jouni 1/11/2016, 9:47 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Thierry Ernst wrote: >> >> The purpose of conference papers is to do research, so I don’t see how conferences papers would help to do … maintenance of IETF RFCs. In addition to bug fixes, MIPv6 and NEMO need to be progressed in the IETF hierarchy of standards. There are issues and options to be discussed, probably even extensions; a WG must host such work. My take is that dmm is the right candidate WG for this to happen. >> > > I still don't see any statements from you on the real need or use. You > talk as if even a BoF is needed, if yes that's what you should go for. > > Regards, > > Behcet > >> Regards, >> Thierry Ernst. >> >> >>> Le 11 janv. 2016 à 17:35, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Thierry Ernst wrote: >>>> >>>> What are protocols you think no one uses ? >>>> >>>> MIPv6 and NEMOv6 needs maintenance, and probably more than than maintenance. >>>> >>> >>> Thierry, I meant PMIPv6 which was designed for operator networks. >>> >>> For MIPv6/NEMOv6, I think in Europe, some research based use is >>> happening, to my knowledge at a very small scale. >>> mip6 WG has been closed long time ago. >>> I wish it were still open, that would be like in good old days. >>> >>> So conference papers and ISE is still my recipe. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Behcet >>>> Regards, >>>> Thierry Ernst. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 à 20:48, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Jouni.nosmap wrote: >>>>>> Well one can always pursue ISE/AD sponsored track if one so feels like. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just saying there are options.. if one desires to go through the WG process DMM has provisions for Mobile IPv6 protocol family maintenance work. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I started this thread by stating that: >>>>> >>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no one uses? >>>>> For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find their places in >>>>> the conferences or journals. >>>>> >>>>> No one objected to the first point. >>>>> >>>>> So what is the justification for maintenance? As I said before, >>>>> charter items can be changed or they do not have to be used. >>>>> >>>>> Behcet >>>>>> Jouni >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos.. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti 8.1.2016 kello 9.15: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented extensions of >>>>>>>> the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue within IETF. >>>>>>>> Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not ISE? For both MIPv6 and MIPv4. >>>>>>> Of course you may not be able modify existing RFCs but just write it >>>>>>> as a new draft and do not bother dmm where future protocol work is >>>>>>> supposed to be done. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Alex, all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it’s fine to work on MIP6 >>>>>>>>> improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I totally agree. >>>>>>>>> And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and the related >>>>>>>>> suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard track. It has >>>>>>>>> been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly right to >>>>>>>>> do it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the work, if >>>>>>>>> not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Thierry. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 à 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu >>>>>>>>>> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Behcet, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >>>>>>>>>>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 >>>>>>>>>>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their >>>>>>>>>>> prime time as “hot research topics". Looking at the existing charter >>>>>>>>>>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can >>>>>>>>>>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jouni I can agree with you in general. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations very >>>>>>>>>> important in some places including where I work. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly protocol and >>>>>>>>>> implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the corrections >>>>>>>>>> have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations thrive >>>>>>>>>> where WG cares little. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged and >>>>>>>>>> does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed >>>>>>>>>> publicly?. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no >>>>>>>>>>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find >>>>>>>>>>>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as >>>>>>>>>>>> well? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>>>>>>>>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > From nobody Tue Jan 12 09:19:20 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB1B1A00CF for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:19:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.15 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F2DQJTeZsOtI for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:19:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x236.google.com (mail-qg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7086E1A00A8 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:19:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-x236.google.com with SMTP id 6so355285558qgy.1 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:19:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+r6VNcQDJaStg28ZdE4OrcqKD7v5qzipEVP1yrNGlhs=; b=B6BC64h/d/rwZYtQxIZcXVJoFfG6/mEfxcjQzVKA35wQjxNGQW610z/D1wv++vlExp 6wm7vdopbkDNyUeVIoXOYFTWm8fMMI9WpAnjpOe42TDcGVACmIy145fNLCkh7aW8CJ4Y 32I0E0jLQYWTZqZUeYqm/67qTIBDpNl94Dt1NnBlk0SvmE9L0b2MNqq4HMBTl4/Lk/1r 5XVW/Eq9xJz24rmMgKULKjcJ7gVU/IgDer0LivWqqO/cSz1q5PIwR9eARGbvewFH+A9J vLLX9uItuTSbevMPS1aJk32nkBSS0zJodTWnHNYKSgxBse4XnamA0z718NP44XFIc2Jl HPjw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.135.16 with SMTP id 16mr147296768qhh.79.1452619155472; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:19:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.55.136.198 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:19:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <569416D3.5090409@gmail.com> References: <56719207.7000604@gmail.com> <1450439102.11602.25.camel@it.uc3m.es> <73AFD314-B981-429A-B6A8-F8F906AB60D6@gmail.com> <568FB180.1000905@gmail.com> <1093D79B-3CE8-4EC5-AE2B-C345018C5AC6@inria.fr> <568FE65C.4020008@gmail.com> <58A5EBFF-CD12-4F4A-BE55-57FF9BB65E5D@gmail.com> <7530D9D1-EBDC-47BE-B6F7-4A81C27D0F75@inria.fr> <569416D3.5090409@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:19:15 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Jouni Korhonen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: "dmm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:19:19 -0000 Hi Jouni, On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Jouni Korhonen wr= ote: > > > This thread is starting to sound like a broken record. We are chartered t= o > have the maintenance responsibility of Mobile IPv6 protocol family. Once = the > chairs see absence of "maintenance oriented" documents that responsibilit= y > will be terminated. Till then, if someone does not like Mobile IPv6 proto= col > family work being done - just defer contributing. That's the natural way = of > aging out topics in IETF. Enough of this for now! > > Another data point to add here. To my (probably misguided?) understanding > PMIP6 has more live deployments than MIP6 today. My understanding is that > there are still operators running PMIP6 based networks and some vendors > developing networking gear with PMIP6 support. > This paragraph conflicts the first one, now you are opening another discussion point. Can you please kindly be more specific? Respectfully yours, Behcet > - Jouni > > > 1/11/2016, 9:47 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti: >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Thierry Ernst >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The purpose of conference papers is to do research, so I don=E2=80=99t = see how >>> conferences papers would help to do =E2=80=A6 maintenance of IETF RFCs.= In addition >>> to bug fixes, MIPv6 and NEMO need to be progressed in the IETF hierarch= y of >>> standards. There are issues and options to be discussed, probably even >>> extensions; a WG must host such work. My take is that dmm is the right >>> candidate WG for this to happen. >>> >> >> I still don't see any statements from you on the real need or use. You >> talk as if even a BoF is needed, if yes that's what you should go for. >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >>> Regards, >>> Thierry Ernst. >>> >>> >>>> Le 11 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 17:35, Behcet Sarikaya a >>>> =C3=A9crit : >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Thierry Ernst >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What are protocols you think no one uses ? >>>>> >>>>> MIPv6 and NEMOv6 needs maintenance, and probably more than than >>>>> maintenance. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thierry, I meant PMIPv6 which was designed for operator networks. >>>> >>>> For MIPv6/NEMOv6, I think in Europe, some research based use is >>>> happening, to my knowledge at a very small scale. >>>> mip6 WG has been closed long time ago. >>>> I wish it were still open, that would be like in good old days. >>>> >>>> So conference papers and ISE is still my recipe. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Behcet >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Thierry Ernst. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 20:48, Behcet Sarikaya a >>>>>> =C3=A9crit : >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Jouni.nosmap >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well one can always pursue ISE/AD sponsored track if one so feels >>>>>>> like. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just saying there are options.. if one desires to go through the W= G >>>>>>> process DMM has provisions for Mobile IPv6 protocol family maintena= nce work. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I started this thread by stating that: >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no on= e >>>>>> uses? >>>>>> For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find their places in >>>>>> the conferences or journals. >>>>>> >>>>>> No one objected to the first point. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what is the justification for maintenance? As I said before, >>>>>> charter items can be changed or they do not have to be used. >>>>>> >>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jouni >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti 8.1.2016 kello >>>>>>>> 9.15: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented >>>>>>>>> extensions of >>>>>>>>> the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue >>>>>>>>> within IETF. >>>>>>>>> Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why not ISE? For both MIPv6 and MIPv4. >>>>>>>> Of course you may not be able modify existing RFCs but just write = it >>>>>>>> as a new draft and do not bother dmm where future protocol work is >>>>>>>> supposed to be done. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Alex, all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it=E2=80=99s fine t= o work on >>>>>>>>>> MIP6 >>>>>>>>>> improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I >>>>>>>>>> totally agree. >>>>>>>>>> And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and >>>>>>>>>> the related >>>>>>>>>> suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard >>>>>>>>>> track. It has >>>>>>>>>> been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainl= y >>>>>>>>>> right to >>>>>>>>>> do it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the >>>>>>>>>> work, if >>>>>>>>>> not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Thierry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu >>>>>>>>>>> a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Behcet, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >>>>>>>>>>>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIP= v6 >>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past the= ir >>>>>>>>>>>> prime time as =E2=80=9Chot research topics". Looking at the ex= isting >>>>>>>>>>>> charter >>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think w= e >>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jouni I can agree with you in general. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations >>>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>>> important in some places including where I work. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly >>>>>>>>>>> protocol and >>>>>>>>>>> implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of th= e >>>>>>>>>>> corrections >>>>>>>>>>> have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations >>>>>>>>>>> thrive >>>>>>>>>>> where WG cares little. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugg= ed >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed >>>>>>>>>>> publicly?. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols tha= t >>>>>>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>>>>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should fin= d >>>>>>>>>>>>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip= 4 >>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>> well? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos = Cano >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enoug= h >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage th= e >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work ou= t >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 version= s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing li= st >>>>>>>>>>>> dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm From nobody Wed Jan 13 14:39:31 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03701A87BD for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:39:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BwjJakgnoBRe for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:39:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x231.google.com (mail-pf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDEB61A87BB for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:39:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 65so88269784pff.2 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:39:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3/A/Ez4NQqdfmYK8oC/aj0CRadzf7QKU3u0ZEdU0t9U=; b=qXCwVu2ZI2icZ8H6KSdsRyiPoq7nf5OAn0bVaWifmTR2xSvwJwetif6cjetP486NRM vFSkvlZCEfOJGhHpjeKSP/VgRunWAFfOkbVmZU2Y+OjzI2XoW9WHQbwXKxYj+GKRYxGv tg1e3ZCBx1ljtP8w14j2IcSRQT9eqLQzEqub/9N0Qbuz8pAayiOmeu2qvZFp8yMmWJ4m 3l4YXxMEDTbs7YaZqVL7ZMpLjcYRLwG2Anm08Z+obDOQszfz+2gqbvONDXu56wSW2Uxe ehE2qOPNgajC3FXbxTXNI6nLIlEtixzO3LkDu1AMqaK76f+BHg/kUeQybcK5c/Hdrdod wUqQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3/A/Ez4NQqdfmYK8oC/aj0CRadzf7QKU3u0ZEdU0t9U=; b=SW4e2bZJaHGBNqO7VYtpZgdNoqlr3ircRw6sPki+OvEOLol2SZOoSpLuole8CIDu+u 5FhfdKZlOf7Io+rh/dudqNDrVb0c4c8mKwp0/zDyHvgR8swsY6iEPEUZikUKSuGGXKVU joASrQFNUSCV9ZBWdiBxQ7G67VKpTTQVq4e7CAXsKDpqemh17Yo29iiJrsAdt8s43FMg tJWF8DPADcOj56vFxxjwRGaA+X098ngWmG23Mx8rsY0kfXlak2uqb+PWbGcei1Vrx750 mt7EevPxtay33VxgO8iZfFk09JEjFBgDpKqItg2eWo78gqUdkFc4+kAX3ntzbHN4BNb9 uwPA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmynAUCZicu6o9ds2fHfR4Z0Ftr7gpB7L8etUoaV2+Cmii6jNQ4zzooI0oExuxdwya51mseVO3CO2311o8e/EASSWzI5w== X-Received: by 10.98.74.9 with SMTP id x9mr1033424pfa.14.1452724769301; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:39:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.10.3.25] (50-206-118-3-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [50.206.118.3]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id l73sm4862314pfi.37.2016.01.13.14.39.28 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:39:28 -0800 (PST) To: "dmm@ietf.org" From: Jouni Korhonen Message-ID: <5696D220.1030408@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:39:28 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [DMM] IETF95 meeting - first call for agenda items X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 22:39:30 -0000 Folks, IETF95 is approaching.. in order to build an agenda with appropriate time allocation we would like to collect the agenda requests as soon as possible. Working group I-Ds have a priority but won't be granted a slot unless asked by the authors explicitly. DMM topics will have priority over MIP maintenance topics. Name your I-D, requested time and if this is about a new work state also the reasoning why it deserves meeting time. Please, avoid requesting slots for I-Ds with just a "trivial" incremental update to the previous version. People should be able to do a diff themselves. Jouni & Dapeng