From leo.liubing@huawei.com Fri Sep 7 03:11:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C3F721F87B9 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 03:11:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9lWlLn7xBUMM for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 03:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D7921F87B8 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 03:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AKL15525; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 10:11:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:10:30 +0100 Received: from SZXEML434-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.62) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:11:12 +0100 Received: from SZXEML509-MBS.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.53]) by szxeml434-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.62]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:11:09 +0800 From: "Liubing (Leo)" To: "sarikaya2012@gmail.com" , "multimob@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Re: [multimob] WG Adoption call for draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04 Thread-Index: Ac2M4S/NNtVlYsNdQHaFHGgpexxopw== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:11:07 +0000 Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F452935262E@szxeml509-mbs> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.42] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [multimob] WG Adoption call for draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 10:11:42 -0000 Support this draft to be adopted. B.R. Bing >From: Behcet Sarikaya >Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:34:46 -0500 >Subject: [multimob] WG Adoption call for draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-= 04 >To: multimob@ietf.org >Hi all, > > > This mail starts a working group adoption call on > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04.txt > > for Experimental status. > > Please reply > > a) support, > > or > > > b) not support > > this adoption call. > > The call will expire on Friday August 24, 2012. > > Regards, > > Chairs From luowen0000@gmail.com Fri Sep 7 05:44:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E8621F8707 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 05:44:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.614 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.614 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.861, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XcDpS6q7RSzI for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 05:44:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f44.google.com (mail-qa0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AA4421F8703 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 05:44:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qafi29 with SMTP id i29so5696933qaf.10 for ; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 05:44:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=4tNr5CPQiNhOlUTMuENtIvSXX6oYLw5pprxmJSuBCwc=; b=bak7c0JExP1bfyMFfIAjMshNFGa5I/ziI8r+/7lmZVIFxNgDxmv3MltpJ55Zcoctf3 8X5SnklWOMmHN0OgVw680dzxlx2Oj9rrCy5v+xd+HZVlPE6hsULXrOnJR/kRaSTX5nct zNYbG8wYzkKv3HlhYpQ7gKfkgR5CI/6aBISKreYqRyZRnZE/XiIWs0jCBgvbFQ8W2YRW /Hg2osiyktm3qUygdfa67PeXt1QVpo2fDXma6+XeDn09PevbNwF+sUKOJXyIdD1GH9GB j2jvXk65Im3Fj1u1VWCs6gNm1RI0EZaEu6xMfYoX+rOO/Hz+5X5ex99BuV7Sgjakp/oK FhJw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.116.210 with SMTP id n18mr7500268qaq.46.1347021858881; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 05:44:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.103.234 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 05:44:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:44:18 +0800 Message-ID: From: Wen Luo To: multimob@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3074bae6673edf04c91bf7dc Subject: [multimob] =?gb2312?b?SnVzdCBhIHRlc3QsIHBsZWFzZSBpZ25vcmUgaXQs?= =?gb2312?b?IHRoYW5rc6Oh?= X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:55:22 -0000 --20cf3074bae6673edf04c91bf7dc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 --20cf3074bae6673edf04c91bf7dc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 --20cf3074bae6673edf04c91bf7dc-- From luowen0000@gmail.com Fri Sep 7 06:02:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB6D21F843F for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 06:02:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.724 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.874, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ytc-rvVSdHP2 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 06:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f44.google.com (mail-qa0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5D221F8433 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 06:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qafi29 with SMTP id i29so5707800qaf.10 for ; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:02:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Ap/4KN5JA6csrw/5iYmXSeNRm/FYvvGjfpBH2UoRt7c=; b=hirkhfTkUCp0qzoh/aZHUm4AhJrVUqRbxcorNZ7tBrkH5lvKkyEIR+IfrG7SX7vxm3 G2zeZSFuOcFmt3NQW6+BTn/YbSTLkQ6vc+kXo99POzjH+EnTkji1JNPBFin5AaOAb82N /vv7a+3H8OTMNILIbcsA9cSba0BO1Djj4ECe1fW8S1OKgZQs3Sns7qK8QsvoByvDqXF/ dWfw7st4yPG4fkXc5B3NBQgWX+fTK7aTuyekwduu1wgsFcdqgYseS7Jf3FKJP34Q3VGK 58pYsDhU8A1dvcQ83sKYpnt89MkQZh2KD2x8ry5cSuSSB57+OI7OJKtka3xln2CeGXfm c9JQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.197.10 with SMTP id ei10mr7530113qab.49.1347022942120; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.103.234 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 06:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:02:22 +0800 Message-ID: From: Wen Luo To: multimob@ietf.org, sarikaya2012@gmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3005dc98f8295704c91c379c Subject: Re: [multimob] WG Adoption call for draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:02:23 -0000 --20cf3005dc98f8295704c91c379c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Chairs and All: I Support this draft to be adopted. B.T.W. maybe something wrong with my email box, I have already send this email twice but it just tell me failed :( Thanks! >From: Behcet Sarikaya >Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:34:46 -0500 >Subject: [multimob] WG Adoption call for draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04 >To: multimob at ietf.org >Hi all, > > > This mail starts a working group adoption call on > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04.txt > > for Experimental status. > > Please reply > > a) support, > > or > > > b) not support > > this adoption call. > > The call will expire on Friday August 24, 2012. > > Regards, > > Chairs --20cf3005dc98f8295704c91c379c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Chairs and All:
=A0
I Support this draft to b= e adopted.
=A0
B.T.W. maybe=A0something wrong with my e= mail box, I have already send this email twice but it just tell me failed := (

Thanks!

=A0

>From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012 at gmail.com>
>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 = 13:34:46 -0500
>Subject: [multimob] WG Adoption call for draft-hui-mu= ltimob-fast-handover-04
>To: multimob at ietf.org
>Hi all,=
>
>
> This mail starts a working group adoption call on<= br>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04.txt<= /a>
>
> for Experimental status.
>
> Please reply
><= br>> a) support,
>
> or
>
>
> b) not suppo= rt
>
> this adoption call.
>
> The call will expire= on Friday August 24, 2012.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chairs

--20cf3005dc98f8295704c91c379c-- From stig@venaas.com Fri Sep 7 10:04:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF1821E8086 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:04:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D1kDqueb4KLl for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:04:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3B721E8055 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:b9a9:6911:8b91:ed95] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:b9a9:6911:8b91:ed95]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06D327FCB; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:04:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <504A2930.5040002@venaas.com> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 10:04:48 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wen Luo References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: multimob@ietf.org, sarikaya2012@gmail.com Subject: Re: [multimob] WG Adoption call for draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:04:56 -0000 Responding as an individual. In my opinion we should not adopt this draft at this point. This draft hasn't been discussed in a while (at least not from I can remember), and we should have more discussion in the WG to understand better whether we need multiple fast handover solutions. We need to understand better what are the pros and cons of the different solutions, and see if they are sufficiently different that multiple solutions are needed, or whether a single solution can be made to sufficiently cover the more important use-cases. I'm not saying that this draft should never be adopted. But I don't think we've had sufficient discussion in the WG. Based on my knowledge right now, I don't know what is the best path forward. Stig From seiljeon@av.it.pt Fri Sep 7 10:24:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEE021F8666 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:24:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lc4kNbCVYbay for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av.it.pt (mail.av.it.pt [193.136.92.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9389321F8620 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [193.136.93.121] (account seiljeon@av.it.pt HELO ATNoGSeil) by av.it.pt (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.2) with ESMTPSA id 66048562; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:23:50 +0100 From: "Seil Jeon" To: References: <504A2930.5040002@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <504A2930.5040002@venaas.com> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:25:48 +0100 Message-ID: <010e01cd8d1d$d2960ef0$77c22cd0$@av.it.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKS45f4gfsy3l2d5uIdNqVFYNFg5AL2rgIWldy6eTA= Content-Language: ko Cc: sarikaya2012@gmail.com Subject: Re: [multimob] WG Adoption call for draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:24:00 -0000 I support Stig's opinion. Actually, we did not get much attention for this progress regardless of the draft's superiority. I know main active MULTIMOB folks didn't show their minds yet since it was requested. I believe we need more discussion about technical aspects of candidate drafts as long as it takes. As another suggestion, I think we need to have "requirement" or "problem statement" before getting started discussion for future items, if MULTIMOB is re-chartered. Since it was not made, we often confuse in the way how to work, e.g. solution use-case, solution scope or boundaries not to cross, etc. Best Regards, Seil -----Original Message----- From: multimob-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig Venaas Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 6:05 PM To: Wen Luo Cc: multimob@ietf.org; sarikaya2012@gmail.com Subject: Re: [multimob] WG Adoption call for draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04 Responding as an individual. In my opinion we should not adopt this draft at this point. This draft hasn't been discussed in a while (at least not from I can remember), and we should have more discussion in the WG to understand better whether we need multiple fast handover solutions. We need to understand better what are the pros and cons of the different solutions, and see if they are sufficiently different that multiple solutions are needed, or whether a single solution can be made to sufficiently cover the more important use-cases. I'm not saying that this draft should never be adopted. But I don't think we've had sufficient discussion in the WG. Based on my knowledge right now, I don't know what is the best path forward. Stig _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com Fri Sep 7 11:47:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18EE21E80D2 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:47:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.486 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W1m+VaP+AvEG for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:47:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from idcout.InterDigital.com (smtp-out1.interdigital.com [64.208.228.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC54B21E80C0 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SAM.InterDigital.com ([10.30.2.11]) by idcout.InterDigital.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:47:06 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:47:06 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [multimob] Deadline Extended for WG Adoption call fordraft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-06.txt Thread-Index: Ac2CFX0nJ0NBnoZ4TmqSpgSFQNrQwALE1TLA References: From: "Rahman, Akbar" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2012 18:47:06.0323 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DAEFA30:01CD8D29] Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] Deadline Extended for WG Adoption call fordraft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-06.txt X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:47:08 -0000 Hi Behcet, I support adopting this I-D as a working group draft. /Akbar -----Original Message----- From: multimob-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 12:28 PM To: multimob@ietf.org Subject: [multimob] Deadline Extended for WG Adoption call fordraft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-06.txt Hi all, We are extending the deadline until Friday Sept. 7, 2012. Regards, Behcet On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi all, > > This mail starts a working group adoption call on > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast -06.txt > > for Experimental status. > > Please reply > > a) support, > > or > > > b) not support > > this adoption call. > > The call will expire on Friday August 24, 2012. > > Regards, > > Chairs _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Sun Sep 9 01:13:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24BA21F84F8 for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 01:13:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wThoiFG0n35v for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 01:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXEDGE02.ad.utwente.nl (exedge02.ad.utwente.nl [130.89.5.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12E721F84EC for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 01:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXHUB02.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.4.229) by EXEDGE02.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.5.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 10:13:35 +0200 Received: from EXMBX04.ad.utwente.nl ([169.254.4.4]) by EXHUB02.ad.utwente.nl ([130.89.4.229]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 10:13:34 +0200 From: To: Thread-Topic: [multimob] Deadline Extended for WG Adoption call fordraft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-06.txt Thread-Index: AQHNjSkymwIlXMBo8EGHKEoF22uYypeBqz+D Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 08:13:34 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: nl-NL X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [80.60.223.107] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] Deadline Extended for WG Adoption call fordraft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-06.txt X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 08:13:39 -0000 Hi Behcet, Hi all, I also support to adopt draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast as = a working group draft. Best regards, Georgios ________________________________________ Van: multimob-bounces@ietf.org [multimob-bounces@ietf.org] namens Rahman, A= kbar [Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com] Verzonden: vrijdag 7 september 2012 20:47 Aan: sarikaya@ieee.org CC: multimob@ietf.org Onderwerp: Re: [multimob] Deadline Extended for WG Adoption call for= draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-06.txt Hi Behcet, I support adopting this I-D as a working group draft. /Akbar -----Original Message----- From: multimob-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 12:28 PM To: multimob@ietf.org Subject: [multimob] Deadline Extended for WG Adoption call fordraft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-06.txt Hi all, We are extending the deadline until Friday Sept. 7, 2012. Regards, Behcet On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi all, > > This mail starts a working group adoption call on > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast -06.txt > > for Experimental status. > > Please reply > > a) support, > > or > > > b) not support > > this adoption call. > > The call will expire on Friday August 24, 2012. > > Regards, > > Chairs _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob= From gaoxlh@gmail.com Sun Sep 9 17:22:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A489D21F845F for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 17:22:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.204 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.204 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8aTo7-awvdwT for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 17:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F7F21F8455 for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 17:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbbrr4 with SMTP id rr4so1575205pbb.31 for ; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:22:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:references:subject:message-id:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ledMypGa2DjF8xOFSiUKNKaxuFzOuULw1f78PsK6r00=; b=hF1qgMeVttZMtTlq5Dyg/1h/CqbcwGgn4IO0ZKyqyUdNXty9MKlVHYHSDscnt4yUVL J4LynD40TgUUwZDXQDAlx8ovUYaJQoX4tylPTTjO5EpUyY2qGvNnhV2LhRI+0GFXLsIA /PCGp9CxwGlHtL+aZSfLz/kn7KB+YetT5TbsmLVuPv+9wFiQ3M6u9g/702zdL2v+XB3y 5lnJbzVpJ/1Gje/c3zaeGhSBaPDLWjNMnmYcd5WmGq/wWFRlO39gwksuCaC9npwUnf6H p6dRdXknCqwfZCnvAGQH5NU2JwThG/iNIMJs3ORHZuo1jElezvpx/aVupo12ry3v5Xq9 QMdw== Received: by 10.68.203.196 with SMTP id ks4mr2791452pbc.107.1347236546966; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from admin-PC ([60.247.46.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kc9sm945004pbb.11.2012.09.09.17.22.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:22:24 +0800 From: "Shuai Gao" To: "sarikaya" References: Message-ID: <201209100822222317881@gmail.com> X-mailer: Foxmail 6, 14, 103, 30 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Cc: multimob Subject: Re: [multimob] Deadline Extended for WG Adoption call fordraft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-06.txt X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:22:27 -0000 SGkgQmVoY2V0LA0KCVdlIGhhdmUgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIHRoaXMgSUQgc2V2ZXJhbCB0aW1lcyBpbiB0 aGUgbWVldGluZ3MuICBJIHN1cHBvcnQgYWRvcHRpbmcgdGhpcyBJRCBhcyBhIFdHIGdyb3VwIGRy YWZ0LiANCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNCg0KU2h1YWkNCg0KCQ0KDQo9PT09PT09IDIwMTItMDgtMjUgMDA6 Mjg6MjYgxPrU2sC00MXW0NC0tcCjuj09PT09PT0NCg0KPkhpIGFsbCwNCj4NCj5XZSBhcmUgZXh0 ZW5kaW5nIHRoZSBkZWFkbGluZSB1bnRpbCBGcmlkYXkgU2VwdC4gNywgMjAxMi4NCj4NCj5SZWdh cmRzLA0KPg0KPkJlaGNldA0KPg0KPk9uIFRodSwgQXVnIDIsIDIwMTIgYXQgMzoxMyBQTSwgQmVo Y2V0IFNhcmlrYXlhIDxzYXJpa2F5YTIwMTJAZ21haWwuY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCj4+IEhpIGFsbCwN Cj4+DQo+PiBUaGlzIG1haWwgc3RhcnRzIGEgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBhZG9wdGlvbiBjYWxsIG9u DQo+PiBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaWQvZHJhZnQtc2NobWlkdC1tdWx0aW1vYi1mbWlw djYtcGZtaXB2Ni1tdWx0aWNhc3QtMDYudHh0DQo+Pg0KPj4gZm9yIEV4cGVyaW1lbnRhbCBzdGF0 dXMuDQo+Pg0KPj4gUGxlYXNlIHJlcGx5DQo+Pg0KPj4gYSkgc3VwcG9ydCwNCj4+DQo+PiBvcg0K Pj4NCj4+DQo+PiBiKSBub3Qgc3VwcG9ydA0KPj4NCj4+IHRoaXMgYWRvcHRpb24gY2FsbC4NCj4+ DQo+PiBUaGUgY2FsbCB3aWxsIGV4cGlyZSBvbiBGcmlkYXkgQXVndXN0IDI0LCAyMDEyLg0KPj4N Cj4+IFJlZ2FyZHMsDQo+Pg0KPj4gQ2hhaXJzDQo+X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj5tdWx0aW1vYiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj5tdWx0aW1vYkBp ZXRmLm9yZw0KPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vbXVsdGltb2IN Cg0KPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9DQoJCQkNCg0KoaGhoaGh oaGhoaGhoaGhodbCDQrA8aOhDQogDQoJCQkJIA0KU2h1YWkgR2FvDQpOYXRpb25hbCBFbmdpbmVl cmluZyBMYWIgZm9yIE5leHQgR2VuZXJhdGlvbiBJbnRlcm5ldCBJbnRlcmNvbm5lY3Rpb24gRGV2 aWNlcw0KQmVpamluZyBKaWFvdG9uZyBVbml2ZXJzaXR5DQpCZWlqaW5nLCBDaGluYSwgMTAwMDQ0 DQpnYW94bGhAZ21haWwuY29tDQoyMDEyLTA5LTEwDQoNCg== From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Sep 11 00:17:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB95F21E8040; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:17:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.486 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kDpIPgt95O6c; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41ED121F857D; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:17:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20120911071703.16258.14984.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:17:03 -0700 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: [multimob] I-D Action: draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01.txt X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:17:03 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Multicast Mobility Working Group of the I= ETF. Title : Multicast Mobility Routing Optimizations for Proxy Mobil= e IPv6 Author(s) : Juan Carlos Zuniga Luis M. Contreras Carlos J. Bernardos Seil Jeon Younghan Kim Filename : draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2012-09-11 Abstract: The MULTIMOB group has specified a base solution to support IP multicasting in a PMIPv6 domain [RFC6224]. In this document, some enhancements to the base solution are described. These enhancements include the use of a multicast tree mobility anchor as the topological anchor point for multicast traffic, as well as a direct routing option where the MAG can provide access to multicast content in the local network. These enhancements provide benefits such as reducing multicast traffic replication and supporting different PMIPv6 deployments scenarios. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Tue Sep 11 08:19:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F8B21F86FC for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:19:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nZN55RsUWAOb for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747DD21F8755 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ieak13 with SMTP id k13so1259177iea.31 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:19:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=2MxMnNMaqM4dQokYwv8ajyMmKFZNhDdpzpSNjmyf8ak=; b=w2r/old+EOvpYzArPPHxZ/HquQusc8H1gFB6KZdKYeW7AqYG3zaXXGs/8ARTtW37Ey GwL+gJJHodrAXsxaYkpCn8Ipy+ovx5Js3YKdMzhB0tPMbaTKOOCu0D49G5uBGtQUKr8n qwaG0ffodqSoYl+d5Ay4hrqwj2o6fxFZj0qsWVLN1YxWq3bd4AJ1zbNUXJlRvozU4bx6 Z5orPhlInruS6xSqqNGLaCj+t8RlMtsl3vqR8I1L87N7keH8n6xUcNnvMEb6v0dmOBgD pMSQqY37eoEKIVWI/A2I55jact9cRy4tiab6PKb9pXTQRu9G8rbU3gdont+8w7K4VTiV PoWA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.195.232 with SMTP id ih8mr13513570igc.45.1347376787047; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.55.70 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:19:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:19:46 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: multimob@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [multimob] Concluding WG adoption calls X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:19:48 -0000 Hi all, The chairs have gone through all the votes and in consultation with Brian, our AD, we came to the conclusion that there is not really enough people voting to say we have a rough consensus right now on adopting any of these two drafts. Regards, Stig & Behcet From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Tue Sep 25 13:38:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281B021F879F for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:38:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.415 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6UPSBYEbLCct for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 943BC21F879E for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oagn5 with SMTP id n5so7471584oag.31 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:38:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=JqqxiANrW/Sc5q8szlnfh88lU0QRHH+2oDUGVfOBfuQ=; b=xEZxqnD1tpxxJA5UAn46eBPXmUliRG3Ook+gxOLkgoT7o8BhRuEcSTWRfKIvWgQgQn IhuGx3X2+yFJSEOMDZmycqHBZQDxQRLC5mJQ6HgQJnvuheSeebzGXu8H7NHgU6YSOpXP VymQ5xKsnqdsKoywghHQ7g+zqHJWjK+y+YfONewt0C6l6HKzxp0WwKkMuxl2mYLIAXhj GawIJnoQShLofm3tXQpT2dvNXzj+WFKPT4fML3Qab2rbTD5+xrPjq4Wg+UX7EastLatk dRksIkSEDWQX0dw2TQrUBrJS41MIl5MqNoXVZh6n0iUHMLxy7orPBu5/TP5KfWb/j7M1 uK0A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.52.3 with SMTP id p3mr13168095obo.56.1348605506156; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.17.37 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:38:26 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: multimob@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [multimob] Volunteers to review draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-01 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:38:27 -0000 Hi all, In IETF84, three people volunteered to review draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-01, Thomas, Akbar and Costas. The volunteers, thanks for volunteering and please post your reviews on the list soon. Regards, Behcet From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Tue Sep 25 13:57:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3477F21F87FA for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:57:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.425 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jHDe+JB3MA9E for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F7A321F87EA for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iec9 with SMTP id 9so16688784iec.31 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:57:38 -0700 (PDT) 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; bh=qd7AClfb6LcQNmVR92Y5YLAeEAtl85Tmr/J8HOyqN4w=; b=evZEP7vBbsbZK0QrEdSyLRtMZ5Cr6GCqpMX/z54o7ejZc3gT9kDcNZ6eONLpHbM+ws 51eBqdgpqGm/iHKk65C0i1I2OmpH/vbruEAOQgoI0y+Gsa6bYhdBLmq1QT8C/oNDMBSR KLoswoSJx/72L3YDgVBTOGQYq3LfphEsvUD7WnKT5bfCASviDA/wJH+Ghv5yEKy1PXPW ZJv8OJnDYKNJ5LDFxwaGI8BIyxzSB3SPD/OLK/R6RtYInUlFgq8NR/6TeRU2Mvka5aoo 9Zkyi7NQfbntOEfnY+fa4YxM7g8hrKg6y9P4xlcmjRFHAYsXeUCHBcx8Gs68r3NQQrR3 K5FA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.47.129 with SMTP id d1mr9500434ign.45.1348606658222; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.55.70 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:57:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120911071703.16258.14984.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20120911071703.16258.14984.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:57:38 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: "Zuniga, Juan Carlos" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: [multimob] I-D Action: draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01.txt X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:57:39 -0000 Hi Juan Carlos, Thanks for revising the draft. Way back before IETF 84, there was a review on this draft at: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multimob/current/msg01442.html How you considered it in your review? Regards, Behcet On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:17 AM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Multicast Mobility Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Multicast Mobility Routing Optimizations for Proxy Mobile IPv6 > Author(s) : Juan Carlos Zuniga > Luis M. Contreras > Carlos J. Bernardos > Seil Jeon > Younghan Kim > Filename : draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01.txt > Pages : 29 > Date : 2012-09-11 > > Abstract: > The MULTIMOB group has specified a base solution to support IP > multicasting in a PMIPv6 domain [RFC6224]. In this document, some > enhancements to the base solution are described. These enhancements > include the use of a multicast tree mobility anchor as the > topological anchor point for multicast traffic, as well as a direct > routing option where the MAG can provide access to multicast content > in the local network. These enhancements provide benefits such as > reducing multicast traffic replication and supporting different > PMIPv6 deployments scenarios. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com Wed Sep 26 13:19:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F7D21F8496 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:19:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QMaELaipImOa for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from idcout.InterDigital.com (smtp-out1.interdigital.com [64.208.228.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3A321F846E for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SAM.InterDigital.com ([10.30.2.11]) by idcout.InterDigital.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:19:50 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD9C24.4873AFE1" Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:19:50 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: [multimob] Volunteers to review draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-01 Thread-Index: Ac2cJEgS6uBlH8gaSBqw89rjTInmgw== From: "Rahman, Akbar" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Sep 2012 20:19:50.0968 (UTC) FILETIME=[4851AB80:01CD9C24] Subject: Re: [multimob] Volunteers to review draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-01 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:19:55 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CD9C24.4873AFE1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, =20 =20 As per my action, I have reviewed draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-01 and have the following feedback to the authors: =20 =20 1. In general, the I-D is well written and in pretty good technical shape. However, I had the following comments that I suggest be incorporated into an update before the WGLC. =20 Detailed Comments: 2. Section 1 (Introduction) o I find the last paragraph in this section ("The solution described in this document ...") to be ambiguous and hard to "prove". How can you really demonstrate that the approach can be applied to "possible architectural evolutions"? I would suggest removing this type of claim unless you can be more specific. o The above comment also applies to the similar statement in the abstract, and section 6. o In paragraph 3, should it be "active multicast content delivery" instead of "active multicast subscription"? o In paragraph 4, I was not really sure if the base [RFC5949] can perform the mechanism or not? (I.E. Does it necessarily require modifications to [RFC5949] to perform the mechanism?) =20 3. Section 2 (Terminology) o The description of "Proactive handover" is confusing ("... the MN de-registration from the pMAG previously to receive the MN registration from the nMAG"). =20 4. Section 3 (Overview) o It would help a lot for readability (and understandability) to have a high level architecture picture in this section. Something along the lines of Figure 1 of RFC 6224 would be an obvious starting point. o The 2nd paragraph stresses that subscription info for an MN to the LMA is only updated after a handover event. This may be true, but later sections (e.g. Fig. 1) do specify other new info being exchanged without a handover event. So this should also be mentioned for balance. 5. Section 4.2.1.1.2 (De-registration process) o In the S=3D1 description, it refers to the "IP addresses of the subscribed group and the source providing it". I interpret the "source" to be referring to the Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) of [RFC4604]. But I understand that an MN can also do a non SSM Join (i.e. indicate only the subscribed group IP address and no source). Is this supported in the draft? (This comment applies to many places in the document). =20 6. Section 5.1.1 (Multicast Activity set to ON) o In Figure 1 and the corresponding text it indicates that the "Act Ind(start)" for the particular MN is sent by the MAG to the LMA as soon as the MLD Report is sent. I understand that this message will be sent for each similar MN that attaches to the MAG (along with a corresponding ACK). What are the signaling load implications for this between the MAG and the LMA?=20 o (My understanding is that in Fig. 1 the flag "A=3D1" is sent in a = PBU which normally would not have been sent at this point for unicast. Please correct me if I am wrong). =20 7. Section 7 (Benefits of layer-2 triggers for fast handover) o It was unclear what the main point of this section is (i.e. what is the standards text)? I especially found the last sentence confusing ("... and that not all the multicast applications could take benefit of it, that functionality could be seen as optional for multicast handover optimization.") =20 8. Section 8 (Security Considerations) o You obviously need to complete this section before WGLC. =20 9. Section 10 (Contributors) o Somehow the phrase ".. has largely contributed.." does not read well (perhaps just change "largely" to "extensively"). =20 10.General: I recall that the authors mentioned that they would do some simulations to prove the benefit of this approach vs the baseline [RFC6224] approach. I think that will be very useful so that the WG can trade the complexity vs. performance benefits of this approach. I did in general find the complexity of even understanding all the different options (reactive vs. proactive, Flag setting, prevention of unicast traffic delays, etc.) to be a bit daunting. I had to go back to your PPT presentations from the IETF meetings to piece everything together (as those slides nicely captured the high level flow). If we had the simulations then we could justify all the complexity. Or even better perhaps support fewer options that give the majority of the benefits? This to me is a key open issue. =20 =20 That's all. =20 =20 /Akbar =20 -----Original Message----- From: multimob-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:38 PM To: multimob@ietf.org Subject: [multimob] Volunteers to review draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-01 =20 Hi all, =20 In IETF84, three people volunteered to review draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-01, =20 Thomas, Akbar and Costas. =20 The volunteers, thanks for volunteering and please post your reviews on the list soon. =20 Regards, =20 Behcet _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CD9C24.4873AFE1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

 

As per = my action, I have reviewed draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-01 and have = the following feedback to the authors:

 

 

1.  In = general, the I-D is well written and in pretty good technical = shape.  However, I had the following comments that I suggest be = incorporated into an update before the WGLC.

 

Detailed Comments:

2.  = Section 1 (Introduction)

o    I find the = last paragraph in this section (“The solution described in this = document …”) to be ambiguous and hard to = “prove”.  How can you really demonstrate that the = approach can be applied to “possible architectural = evolutions”?  I would suggest removing this type of claim = unless you can be more specific.

o    The above = comment also applies to the similar statement in the abstract, and = section 6.

o    In = paragraph 3, should it be “active multicast content = delivery” instead of “active multicast = subscription”?

o    In = paragraph 4, I was not really sure if the base [RFC5949] can perform the = mechanism or not?  (I.E. Does it necessarily require modifications = to [RFC5949] to perform the mechanism?)

 

3.  = Section 2 (Terminology)

o    The = description of “Proactive handover” is confusing = (“… the MN de-registration from the pMAG previously to = receive the MN registration from the nMAG”).

 

4.  = Section 3 (Overview)

o    It would = help a lot for readability (and understandability) to have a high level = architecture picture in this section.  Something along the lines of = Figure 1 of RFC 6224 would be an obvious starting = point.

o    The = 2nd paragraph stresses that subscription info for an MN to = the LMA is only updated after a handover event.  This may be true, = but later sections (e.g. Fig. 1) do specify other new info being = exchanged without a handover event.  So this should also be = mentioned for balance.

=

5.  = Section 4.2.1.1.2 (De-registration = process)

o    In the = S=3D1 description, it refers to the “IP addresses of the = subscribed group and the source providing it”.  I interpret = the “source” to be referring to the Source-Specific = Multicast (SSM) of [RFC4604].  But I understand that an MN can also = do a non SSM Join (i.e. indicate only the subscribed group IP address = and no source).  Is this supported in the draft?  (This = comment applies to many places in the document).

 

6.  = Section 5.1.1 (Multicast Activity set to = ON)

o    In Figure = 1 and the corresponding text it indicates that the “Act = Ind(start)” for the particular MN is sent by the MAG to the LMA as = soon as the MLD Report is sent.  I understand that this message = will be sent for each similar MN that attaches to the MAG (along with a = corresponding ACK).  What are the signaling load implications for = this between the MAG and the LMA?

o    (My = understanding is that in Fig. 1 the flag “A=3D1” is sent in = a PBU which normally would not have been sent at this point for = unicast.  Please correct me if I am wrong).

 

7.  = Section 7 (Benefits of layer-2 triggers for fast = handover)

o    It was = unclear what the main point of this section is (i.e. what is the = standards text)?  I especially found the last sentence confusing = (“… and that not all the multicast applications could take = benefit of it, that functionality could be seen as optional for = multicast handover optimization.”)

 

8.  = Section 8 (Security = Considerations)

o    You = obviously need to complete this section before WGLC.

 

9.  = Section 10 (Contributors)

o    Somehow = the phrase “.. has largely contributed..” does not read well = (perhaps just change “largely” to = “extensively”).

 

10.General: I recall that the = authors mentioned that they would do some simulations to prove the = benefit of this approach vs the baseline [RFC6224] approach.  I = think that will be very useful so that the WG can trade the complexity = vs. performance benefits of this approach.  I did in general find = the complexity of even understanding all the different options (reactive = vs. proactive, Flag setting, prevention of unicast traffic delays, etc.) = to be a bit daunting.  I had to go back to your PPT presentations = from the IETF meetings to piece everything together (as those slides = nicely captured the high level flow).  If we had the simulations = then we could justify all the complexity.  Or even better perhaps = support fewer options that give the majority of the benefits?  This = to me is a key open issue.

 

 

That’s all.

 

 

/Akbar

 

-----Original Message-----
From: multimob-bounces@ietf.org = [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.or= g] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 = 4:38 PM
To: multimob@ietf.org
Subject: = [multimob] Volunteers to review = draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-01

 

Hi = all,

 

In IETF84, three people volunteered to = review

draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-01,

=

 

Thomas, Akbar and Costas.

 

The = volunteers, thanks for volunteering and please post your = reviews

on the list = soon.

 

Regards,

 

Behcet

_______________________________________________=

multimob mailing list

multimob@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.= org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01CD9C24.4873AFE1--