From isoto@it.uc3m.es Wed Jan 2 02:58:39 2013 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 E7C3421F9097 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 02:58:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 qFjQk06tpLXD for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 02:58:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E033521F9099 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 02:58:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [163.117.203.138] (unknown [163.117.203.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: isoto@smtp03.uc3m.es) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D332FFA81EE; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:58:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50E412DC.2090003@it.uc3m.es> Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 11:58:36 +0100 From: Ignacio Soto User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alvaro Fernandez References: <20121231170529.29096.96002.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <823234EF5C7C334998D973D822FF801B1EE02B57@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070105040800010901090401" X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelistedACL 131 matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (smtp03.uc3m.es); Wed, 02 Jan 2013 11:58:36 +0100 (CET) X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.0.0.1014-19502.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--35.030-7.0-31-1 X-imss-scan-details: No--35.030-7.0-31-1 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] RV: New Version Notificationfor draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-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: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 10:58:40 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070105040800010901090401 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Alvaro, Thank you for your question. IPMulticastListen is "a service interface used by upper-layer protocols or application programs to ask the IP layer to enable and disable reception of packets sent to specific IP multicast addresses" (RFC 3376) so it is unrelated with handover except if you want to involve upper layers in handover management. But that possibility is out of the scope of Multimob, where any active involvement of the MN in the handover process is explicitly prevented. So after the handover the MN sends a Membership Report when receiving a Query (this is described in Figure 2 of RFC 6224). Best regards and Happy New Year, Ignacio El 31/12/2012 19:45, Alvaro Fernandez escribió: > RE: [multimob] RV: New Version Notificationfor > draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01.txt > > Hi and Happy New Year > > I haven't write to this group is some years and may be I am missing > something but I have a question after reading the draft: > > Why considering the time to answer a Query to calculate the latency in > the handover? > > The MN can send the IGMP/MLD messages without waiting for a Query. > > Below there is a copy of the part 5.1 of the RFC 3376. > > Regards > > Alvaro > > FROM RFC 3376 > > There are two types of events that trigger IGMPv3 protocol actions on > an interface: > > o a change of the interface reception state, caused by a local > invocation of IPMulticastListen. > > o reception of a Query. > > (Received IGMP messages of types other than Query are silently > ignored, except as required for interoperation with earlier versions > of IGMP.) > The following subsections describe the actions to be taken for each > of these two cases. In those descriptions, timer and counter names > appear in square brackets. The default values for those timers and > counters are specified in section 8. > > 5.1. Action on Change of Interface State > > An invocation of IPMulticastListen may cause the multicast reception > state of an interface to change, according to the rules in section > 3.2. Each such change affects the per-interface entry for a single > multicast address. > > A change of interface state causes the system to immediately transmit > a State-Change Report from that interface. The type and contents of > the Group Record(s) in that Report are determined by comparing the > filter mode and source list for the affected multicast address before > and after the change, according to the table below. If no interface > state existed for that multicast address before the change (i.e., the > change consisted of creating a new per-interface record), or if no > state exists after the change (i.e., the change consisted of deleting > a per-interface record), then the "non-existent" state is considered > to have a filter mode of INCLUDE and an empty source list. > > etc. > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: multimob-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO > Enviado el: lun 31/12/2012 18:14 > Para: multimob@ietf.org > Asunto: [multimob] RV: New Version Notificationfor > draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01.txt > > Dear colleagues, > > The version -01 of draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization has been > just uploaded, covering the following points according to the comments > received: > > .- List of requirements for handover optimization > .- IPv4 support > .- Compatibility with different versions of MLD/IGMP > > Best regards, and Happy New Year, > > Luis > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] > Enviado el: lunes, 31 de diciembre de 2012 18:05 > Para: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO > CC: isoto@it.uc3m.es; cjbc@it.uc3m.es > Asunto: New Version Notification for > draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Luis M. Contreras and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Filename: draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization > Revision: 01 > Title: PMIPv6 multicast handover optimization by the > Subscription Information Acquisition through the LMA (SIAL) > Creation date: 2012-12-30 > WG ID: multimob > Number of pages: 47 > URL: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01.txt > Status: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization > Htmlized: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01 > Diff: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01 > > Abstract: > This document specifies a multicast handover optimization mechanism > for Proxy Mobile IPv6 to accelerate the delivery of multicast traffic > to mobile nodes after handovers. The mechanism is based on speeding > up the acquisition of mobile nodes' multicast context by the mobile > access gateways. To do that, extensions to the current Proxy Mobile > IPv6 protocol are proposed. These extensions are not only applicable > to the base solution for multicast support in Proxy Mobile IPv6, but > they can also be applied to other solutions being developed to avoid > the tunnel convergence problem. Furthermore, they are also > independent of the role played by the mobile access gateway within > the multicast network (either acting as multicast listener discovery > proxy or multicast router). > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > ________________________________ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede > consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico > en el enlace situado más abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send > and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > _______________________________________________ > 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 --------------070105040800010901090401 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Alvaro,

Thank you for your question.

IPMulticastListen is "a service interface used by upper-layer protocols or application programs to ask the IP layer to enable and disable reception of packets sent to specific IP multicast addresses" (RFC 3376) so it is unrelated with handover except if you want to involve upper layers in handover management. But that possibility is out of the scope of Multimob, where any active involvement of the MN in the handover process is explicitly prevented. So after the handover the MN sends a Membership Report when receiving a Query (this is described in Figure 2 of RFC 6224).

Best regards and Happy New Year,

Ignacio
 

El 31/12/2012 19:45, Alvaro Fernandez escribió:
RE: [multimob] RV: New Version Notificationfor draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01.txt

Hi and Happy New Year

I haven't write to this group is some years and may be I am missing something but I have a question after reading the draft:

Why considering the time to answer a Query to calculate the latency in the handover?

The MN can send the IGMP/MLD messages without waiting for a Query.

Below there is a copy of the part 5.1 of the RFC 3376.

Regards

Alvaro

FROM RFC 3376

There are two types of events that trigger IGMPv3 protocol actions on
   an interface:

   o a change of the interface reception state, caused by a local
     invocation of IPMulticastListen.

   o reception of a Query.

   (Received IGMP messages of types other than Query are silently
   ignored, except as required for interoperation with earlier versions
   of IGMP.)
   The following subsections describe the actions to be taken for each
   of these two cases.  In those descriptions, timer and counter names
   appear in square brackets.  The default values for those timers and
   counters are specified in section 8.

5.1. Action on Change of Interface State

   An invocation of IPMulticastListen may cause the multicast reception
   state of an interface to change, according to the rules in section
   3.2.  Each such change affects the per-interface entry for a single
   multicast address.

   A change of interface state causes the system to immediately transmit
   a State-Change Report from that interface.  The type and contents of
   the Group Record(s) in that Report are determined by comparing the
   filter mode and source list for the affected multicast address before
   and after the change, according to the table below.  If no interface
   state existed for that multicast address before the change (i.e., the
   change consisted of creating a new per-interface record), or if no
   state exists after the change (i.e., the change consisted of deleting
   a per-interface record), then the "non-existent" state is considered
   to have a filter mode of INCLUDE and an empty source list.

etc.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: multimob-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
Enviado el: lun 31/12/2012 18:14
Para: multimob@ietf.org
Asunto: [multimob] RV: New Version Notificationfor      draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01.txt

Dear colleagues,

The version -01 of draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization has been just uploaded, covering the following points according to the comments received:

.- List of requirements for handover optimization
.- IPv4 support
.- Compatibility with different versions of MLD/IGMP

Best regards, and Happy New Year,

Luis

-----Mensaje original-----
De: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
Enviado el: lunes, 31 de diciembre de 2012 18:05
Para: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
CC: isoto@it.uc3m.es; cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Asunto: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01.txt


A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Luis M. Contreras and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:        draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization
Revision:        01
Title:           PMIPv6 multicast handover optimization by the Subscription Information Acquisition through the LMA (SIAL)
Creation date:   2012-12-30
WG ID:           multimob
Number of pages: 47
URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01
Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-01

Abstract:
   This document specifies a multicast handover optimization mechanism
   for Proxy Mobile IPv6 to accelerate the delivery of multicast traffic
   to mobile nodes after handovers.  The mechanism is based on speeding
   up the acquisition of mobile nodes' multicast context by the mobile
   access gateways.  To do that, extensions to the current Proxy Mobile
   IPv6 protocol are proposed.  These extensions are not only applicable
   to the base solution for multicast support in Proxy Mobile IPv6, but
   they can also be applied to other solutions being developed to avoid
   the tunnel convergence problem.  Furthermore, they are also
   independent of the role played by the mobile access gateway within
   the multicast network (either acting as multicast listener discovery
   proxy or multicast router).




The IETF Secretariat


________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
_______________________________________________
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

--------------070105040800010901090401-- From stig@venaas.com Thu Jan 3 21:04:16 2013 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 E3BF821F8E46 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 21:04:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ZF0XOfY7V3aB for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 21:04:16 -0800 (PST) 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 3004221F8CAA for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 21:04:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.21.85.179] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3710A7FBB for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 06:04:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50E66340.3080206@venaas.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:06:08 -0800 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "multimob@ietf.org" References: <50E65CC8.7030307@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <50E65CC8.7030307@venaas.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <50E65CC8.7030307@venaas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [multimob] Fwd: Adoption of draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-wireless-mobile-02 as a pim wg work item 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, 04 Jan 2013 05:04:17 -0000 Hi I'm sending this as a pim wg chair. draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-wireless-mobile has been presented both in multimob and in pim. In Atlanta there was support for working on this in the pim wg (5 to none) and the pim wg is now starting an adoption call. The pim wg is responsible for IGMP/MLD protocol work and the pim chairs believe it is reasonable to do the work there, as there is expertise in the protocols and the draft discusses protocol changes, or at least behavior changes. Of course multimob has a strong interest in this and needs to participate. We're hoping that people from multimob can take part in the pim wg, and also we want input from the multimob wg. We basically want both the WGs to work on this, but it needs an official home. Related work has been discussed in multimob before. If you have an interest in this, it would be great if you can respond to the pim mailing list whether you think pim should adopt it or not. We're of course interested to hear what members of multimob think. Also speak up if you believe multimob is a better home. If there is support in the pim WG for adoption, we'll also check with the ADs responsible for pim and multimob that this is the right place to do the work. See below for the pim wg adoption call. Stig -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Adoption of draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-wireless-mobile-02 as a pim wg work item Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 20:38:32 -0800 From: Stig Venaas To: pim@ietf.org CC: Mike McBride At the pim wg meeting in Atlanta there were 5 people supporting working on this in the pim wg, none against. We would like to do an adoption call to see if we are ready to adopt this as a pim wg work item. Note that this has also been presented in multimob and there has been some discussion about which wg is the most suitable. Mike and I believe the pim wg is a good place to do this as the pim wg is currently responsible for IGMP/MLD protocol work and has expertise in this area. Multimob has interest in this though, so we certainly want members of multimob to participate. If we through this adoption call decide that we want to adopt this in pim, we'll verify with the ADs responsible for pim and multimob that this is reasonable. I'm also sending a note about this to multimob, so that they can get a chance to voice their opinion. If you are in favor or against adopting this draft in the pim wg, please send an email to the pim wg list with your opinion. Please do so by Thursday January 17th. Stig From william.atwood@concordia.ca Fri Jan 4 07:58:31 2013 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 A016421F8870; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 07:58:31 -0800 (PST) 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 LgwFN4Wxrb8a; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 07:58:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.96.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119B021F8830; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 07:58:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (bill@poise.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.2.209]) by oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (envelope-from william.atwood@concordia.ca) (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id r04Fw8cc001616; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 10:58:09 -0500 Message-ID: <50E6FC13.8090802@concordia.ca> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:58:11 -0500 From: John William Atwood Organization: Concordia University, Montreal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pim@ietf.org References: <50E65CC8.7030307@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <50E65CC8.7030307@venaas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca at 2013/01/04 10:58:09 EST Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] [pim] Adoption of draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-wireless-mobile-02 as a pim wg work item 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, 04 Jan 2013 15:58:31 -0000 I support the adoption of this draft in the PIM WG, as a working group item. I agree that PIM is the right place to do this work, because PIM WG has the mandate for work on IGMP/MLD, and because the work applies more generally than just to mobile environments. Bill On 1/3/2013 11:38 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: > At the pim wg meeting in Atlanta there were 5 people supporting > working on this in the pim wg, none against. We would like to do > an adoption call to see if we are ready to adopt this as a pim wg > work item. > > Note that this has also been presented in multimob and there has > been some discussion about which wg is the most suitable. Mike and > I believe the pim wg is a good place to do this as the pim wg is > currently responsible for IGMP/MLD protocol work and has expertise > in this area. Multimob has interest in this though, so we certainly > want members of multimob to participate. > > If we through this adoption call decide that we want to adopt this in > pim, we'll verify with the ADs responsible for pim and multimob that > this is reasonable. > > I'm also sending a note about this to multimob, so that they can get > a chance to voice their opinion. > > If you are in favor or against adopting this draft in the pim wg, > please send an email to the pim wg list with your opinion. Please > do so by Thursday January 17th. > > Stig > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim -- Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng. tel: +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046 Distinguished Professor Emeritus fax: +1 (514) 848-2830 Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering Concordia University EV 3.185 email:william.atwood@concordia.ca 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8 From prvs=709572797=schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de Fri Jan 4 08:43:38 2013 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 0D85621F8A67; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 08:43:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, 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 E+Uu01CPXf5l; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 08:43:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx3.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de (mx3.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de [141.22.6.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A44C921F8947; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 08:43:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([141.22.30.74]) by mail3.is.haw-hamburg.de with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 04 Jan 2013 17:43:34 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45B9105A75B; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 17:43:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22555-04; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 17:43:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.178.36] (g231226161.adsl.alicedsl.de [92.231.226.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5602F105A757; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 17:43:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50E706BF.4020102@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:43:43 +0100 From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John William Atwood References: <50E65CC8.7030307@venaas.com> <50E6FC13.8090802@concordia.ca> In-Reply-To: <50E6FC13.8090802@concordia.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at informatik.haw-hamburg.de Cc: multimob@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] [pim] Adoption of draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-wireless-mobile-02 as a pim wg work item 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, 04 Jan 2013 16:43:38 -0000 Hi Stig, Bill, I would also see this work rather in the PIM WG, as this asks for detailed IGMP/MLD knowledge ... Cheers, Thomas On 04.01.2013 16:58, John William Atwood wrote: > I support the adoption of this draft in the PIM WG, as a working group > item. I agree that PIM is the right place to do this work, because PIM > WG has the mandate for work on IGMP/MLD, and because the work applies > more generally than just to mobile environments. > > Bill > > On 1/3/2013 11:38 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: >> At the pim wg meeting in Atlanta there were 5 people supporting >> working on this in the pim wg, none against. We would like to do >> an adoption call to see if we are ready to adopt this as a pim wg >> work item. >> >> Note that this has also been presented in multimob and there has >> been some discussion about which wg is the most suitable. Mike and >> I believe the pim wg is a good place to do this as the pim wg is >> currently responsible for IGMP/MLD protocol work and has expertise >> in this area. Multimob has interest in this though, so we certainly >> want members of multimob to participate. >> >> If we through this adoption call decide that we want to adopt this in >> pim, we'll verify with the ADs responsible for pim and multimob that >> this is reasonable. >> >> I'm also sending a note about this to multimob, so that they can get >> a chance to voice their opinion. >> >> If you are in favor or against adopting this draft in the pim wg, >> please send an email to the pim wg list with your opinion. Please >> do so by Thursday January 17th. >> >> Stig >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pim mailing list >> pim@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > -- Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 ° ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany ° ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 ° ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 ° From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Fri Jan 4 09:48:14 2013 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 6A2A721F8540; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 09:48:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] 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 vY5WlzZp1Lqt; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 09:48:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D123121F885C; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 09:48:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id fn20so10208463lab.12 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:48:10 -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; bh=/tTQmrurCbxRISmxp7C0rBRTMR2A6+nitFYkn3jDI6o=; b=vhPWDPNqz4TbYRytX50GK1D4lt7k9wkL0gttcrk7O62Wag90bnlfdXUpz9e/xZl6gf v/BKNqF3DFVLG74t3TVRszjzqZVtwfI/2CG3S9xKs0FqIimg5uOaDx2wa21V1ZK/K7FW bEhJd3rsFHTFp0nIedS+40zJbgr2EeD+pGfxiaXi0MCMzxhZL6ySGBBPUim+1J1+O99j sR/oFh/qAtHnzLL1WXx+4Ip0ZfiGMikPFFkKVUUUxjEOU9IZ39J5VgTWsrU7qTMdCFt7 0fMZyJ1wcXjZu6ffAqMB9GMxrvCnVjkJuF+B3lUIl1224xCDc98WhddxscSPIL1Dxm1G DZKA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.46.199 with SMTP id x7mr21566253lbm.109.1357321690283; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:48:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.78.37 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 09:48:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50E706BF.4020102@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> References: <50E65CC8.7030307@venaas.com> <50E6FC13.8090802@concordia.ca> <50E706BF.4020102@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 11:48:10 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec554056831fe6704d27a1527 Cc: multimob@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] [pim] Adoption of draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-wireless-mobile-02 as a pim wg work item 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: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:48:14 -0000 --bcaec554056831fe6704d27a1527 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I remember this draft very well. I had initiated writing version 00 and had solicited Mike to co-author it. Never realized that it would go to pim :-). BTW, I think there are problems with the affiliations of authors. Good luck. Behcet On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Thomas C. Schmidt < schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> wrote: > Hi Stig, Bill, > > I would also see this work rather in the PIM WG, as this asks for detaile= d > IGMP/MLD knowledge ... > > Cheers, > > Thomas > > > On 04.01.2013 16:58, John William Atwood wrote: > >> I support the adoption of this draft in the PIM WG, as a working group >> item. I agree that PIM is the right place to do this work, because PIM >> WG has the mandate for work on IGMP/MLD, and because the work applies >> more generally than just to mobile environments. >> >> Bill >> >> On 1/3/2013 11:38 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: >> >>> At the pim wg meeting in Atlanta there were 5 people supporting >>> working on this in the pim wg, none against. We would like to do >>> an adoption call to see if we are ready to adopt this as a pim wg >>> work item. >>> >>> Note that this has also been presented in multimob and there has >>> been some discussion about which wg is the most suitable. Mike and >>> I believe the pim wg is a good place to do this as the pim wg is >>> currently responsible for IGMP/MLD protocol work and has expertise >>> in this area. Multimob has interest in this though, so we certainly >>> want members of multimob to participate. >>> >>> If we through this adoption call decide that we want to adopt this in >>> pim, we'll verify with the ADs responsible for pim and multimob that >>> this is reasonable. >>> >>> I'm also sending a note about this to multimob, so that they can get >>> a chance to voice their opinion. >>> >>> If you are in favor or against adopting this draft in the pim wg, >>> please send an email to the pim wg list with your opinion. Please >>> do so by Thursday January 17th. >>> >>> Stig >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> pim mailing list >>> pim@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/pim >>> >> >> > -- > > Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt > =B0 Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor= 7 =B0 > =B0 Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germa= ny =B0 > =B0 http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-84= 52=B0 > =B0 http://www.informatik.haw-**hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: > +49-40-42875-8409 =B0 > > ______________________________**_________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/multimob > --bcaec554056831fe6704d27a1527 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all,

I remember this draft very well.
I had initiated writing = version 00 and had solicited Mike to co-author it.

Never realized th= at it would go to pim :-).
BTW, I think there are problems with the affi= liations of authors.

Good luck.

Behcet

On Fri, Jan = 4, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Thomas C. Schmidt <schmidt@informatik= .haw-hamburg.de> wrote:
Hi Stig, Bill,

I would also see this work rather in the PIM WG, as this asks for detailed = IGMP/MLD knowledge ...

Cheers,

Thomas


On 04.01.2013 16:58, John William Atwood wrote:
I support the adoption of this draft in the PIM WG, as a working group
item. =A0I agree that PIM is the right place to do this work, because PIM WG has the mandate for work on IGMP/MLD, and because the work applies
more generally than just to mobile environments.

=A0 =A0Bill

On 1/3/2013 11:38 PM, Stig Venaas wrote:
At the pim wg meeting in Atlanta there were 5 people supporting
working on this in the pim wg, none against. We would like to do
an adoption call to see if we are ready to adopt this as a pim wg
work item.

Note that this has also been presented in multimob and there has
been some discussion about which wg is the most suitable. Mike and
I believe the pim wg is a good place to do this as the pim wg is
currently responsible for IGMP/MLD protocol work and has expertise
in this area. Multimob has interest in this though, so we certainly
want members of multimob to participate.

If we through this adoption call decide that we want to adopt this in
pim, we'll verify with the ADs responsible for pim and multimob that this is reasonable.

I'm also sending a note about this to multimob, so that they can get a chance to voice their opinion.

If you are in favor or against adopting this draft in the pim wg,
please send an email to the pim wg list with your opinion. Please
do so by Thursday January 17th.

Stig

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim


--

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
=B0 Hamburg University of Applied Sciences =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 Berliner Tor 7 =B0
=B0 Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group =A0 =A020099 Hamburg, Ger= many =B0
=B0 http://www= .haw-hamburg.de/inet =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Fon: +49= -40-42875-8452 =B0
=B0 http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt =A0 =A0Fax: <= a href=3D"tel:%2B49-40-42875-8409" value=3D"+4940428758409" target=3D"_blan= k">+49-40-42875-8409 =B0

_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
multimob@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

--bcaec554056831fe6704d27a1527-- From Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com Tue Jan 8 09:35:56 2013 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 5C11811E80DF for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 09:35:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 eB28mplwOHNi for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 09:35:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-out1.interdigital.com (smtp-out1.interdigital.com [64.208.228.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D948721F870E for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 09:35:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from SAM.InterDigital.com ([10.30.2.12]) by smtp-out1.interdigital.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 8 Jan 2013 12:35:53 -0500 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_01CDEDC6.9BF0BC42" Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 12:35:53 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-02 Thread-Index: Ac3txpt04NPg5M8tRPOrFDJP2+kOjA== From: "Rahman, Akbar" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2013 17:35:53.0916 (UTC) FILETIME=[9BF0A7C0:01CDEDC6] Subject: [multimob] Review of draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-02 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, 08 Jan 2013 17:35:56 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CDEDC6.9BF0BC42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, =20 =20 As per my action from the IETF-Atlanta meeting, I have reviewed: =20 http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-02.txt =20 and have the following comments: =20 1) Section 1, 4th paragraph * Can you give some more guidance (qualitative or quantitative) as to when the two enhancements covered in this I-D should be used over the baseline (RFC6224) solution? A (small) separate section to cover this question in the Overview (section 3) would be very helpful. =20 2) Section 3.2, Figure 2=20 * This figure should be re-drawn to match the conventions of Figure 1 (or vice versa). Since Figure 1 and Figure 2 are supposed to illustrate the two main options of the I-D, it is unfortunate that they are currently using different conventions (e.g. Fig. 2 shows MN movement, while Fig. 1 does not).=20 =20 3) Section 6 * For completeness, I think you need a (short) new section similar to this one for the MR. =20 4) Section 9 * Needs to be updated to cover section 5.1.2 "Type" =20 5) Section 10 * But isn't there protocol modifications proposed, for example, in section 5.1.1? * Also, the MTMA is introduced as a new node not existing in previous PMIP architectures. So definitely some discussion is needed to show the security considerations of the MTMA. Perhaps the same is needed for the MR in the Direct Routing option? =20 6) General - Overall, the document is well written and in good shape, and I support in progressing it further once the updates above are made. =20 =20 =20 =20 /Akbar =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CDEDC6.9BF0BC42 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

 

As per my = action from the IETF-Atlanta meeting, I have reviewed:

 

ht= tp://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-02.txt

 

and = have the following comments:

 

1)      = Section 1, 4th = paragraph

·         = Can you give some more guidance = (qualitative or quantitative) as to when the two  enhancements = covered in this I-D should be used over the baseline (RFC6224) = solution?  A (small) separate section to cover this question in the = Overview (section 3) would be very helpful.

 

2)      = Section 3.2, Figure 2

·         = This figure should be re-drawn to match = the conventions of Figure 1 (or vice versa).  Since Figure 1 and = Figure 2 are supposed to illustrate the two main options of the I-D, it = is unfortunate that they are currently using different conventions (e.g. = Fig. 2 shows MN movement, while Fig. 1 does not).

 

3)      = Section 6

·         = For completeness, I think you need a = (short) new section similar to this one for the MR.

 

4)      = Section 9

·         = Needs to be updated to cover section = 5.1.2 “Type”

 

5)      = Section 10

·         = But isn’t there protocol = modifications proposed, for example, in section 5.1.1?

·         = Also, the MTMA is introduced as a new = node not existing in previous PMIP architectures.  So definitely = some discussion is needed to show the security considerations of the = MTMA.  Perhaps the same is needed for the MR in the Direct Routing = option?

 

6)      = General – Overall, the document is well = written and in good shape, and I support in progressing it further once = the updates above are made.

 

 

 

 

/Akbar

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01CDEDC6.9BF0BC42-- From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Tue Jan 8 11:15:29 2013 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 352E121F84B2 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:15:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.765 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.765 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.833, 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 dn0q7muiwU0x for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:15:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com (mail-lb0-f175.google.com [209.85.217.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED69621F847F for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:15:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f175.google.com with SMTP id gg13so652701lbb.34 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:15:26 -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; bh=hUP+4NdLUWrenQ9RqKQnM3ZN3ZBWq/dU2WQ4Be0LDcw=; b=xs/Q6hCdn4T+0XS988yD3HO4dGcrxuj7mUH0u3qm7rmZokOZiG4E+Hcg13sMX0bUUM XPvAlpooEU/FO7upyAhj91yiGxiLTqr3iE/syE2zEw86I5iPH1YoGOcJiTNuRUbV7HVe mwH8IgO93ceNVVfCAp+NgHd05ZOZUZXexpxgoeamGkFtoPRYdd9ZlaEvJAg7gUE3rz5G UcNWdSHbUOLSHaxJTQIyKnPygvIF/bc2Lujxa96Hryu4iJhhWm0FSp1fQdyBoldCxf8K 1swcY7H30G1GoYoY+NmEjp77Fa1m6F6PH0UzNpmamwdWDW5ezp4h5zD02ljBAFXwwbAP AE1A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.29.229 with SMTP id n5mr27576647lbh.130.1357672526779; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:15:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.78.37 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:15:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 13:15:26 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: "Rahman, Akbar" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0421a78bae156f04d2cbc405 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] Review of draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-02 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, 08 Jan 2013 19:15:29 -0000 --f46d0421a78bae156f04d2cbc405 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, First of all Happy New Year to everyone! Thanks Akbar for posting your review and being so timely on this as always, we appreciate it :-). My message is to others who also committed a review, please post your reviews. Let's help WG draft authors by good reviews. I am hoping that at least a few of them can be in WGLC status maybe after presentations in Orlando. Regards, Behcet On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Rahman, Akbar < Akbar.Rahman@interdigital.com> wrote: > Hi,**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > As per my action from the IETF-Atlanta meeting, I have reviewed:**** > > ** ** > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-02.txt**** > > ** ** > > and have the following comments:**** > > ** ** > > **1) **Section 1, 4th paragraph**** > > **=B7 **Can you give some more guidance (qualitative or > quantitative) as to when the two enhancements covered in this I-D should > be used over the baseline (RFC6224) solution? A (small) separate section > to cover this question in the Overview (section 3) would be very helpful.= * > *** > > ** ** > > **2) **Section 3.2, Figure 2 **** > > **=B7 **This figure should be re-drawn to match the conventions o= f > Figure 1 (or vice versa). Since Figure 1 and Figure 2 are supposed to > illustrate the two main options of the I-D, it is unfortunate that they a= re > currently using different conventions (e.g. Fig. 2 shows MN movement, whi= le > Fig. 1 does not). **** > > ** ** > > **3) **Section 6**** > > **=B7 **For completeness, I think you need a (short) new section > similar to this one for the MR.**** > > ** ** > > **4) **Section 9**** > > **=B7 **Needs to be updated to cover section 5.1.2 =93Type=94**** > > ** ** > > **5) **Section 10**** > > **=B7 **But isn=92t there protocol modifications proposed, for > example, in section 5.1.1?**** > > **=B7 **Also, the MTMA is introduced as a new node not existing i= n > previous PMIP architectures. So definitely some discussion is needed to > show the security considerations of the MTMA. Perhaps the same is needed > for the MR in the Direct Routing option?**** > > ** ** > > **6) **General =96 Overall, the document is well written and in good > shape, and I support in progressing it further once the updates above are > made.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > /Akbar**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > > --f46d0421a78bae156f04d2cbc405 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all,

First of all Happy New Year to everyone!

Thanks Akbar= for posting your review and being so timely on this as always, we apprecia= te it :-).

My message is to others who also committed a review, plea= se post your reviews.

Let's help WG draft authors by good reviews. I am hoping that at le= ast a few of them can be in WGLC status maybe after presentations in Orland= o.

Regards,

Behcet

On Tue, = Jan 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Rahman, Akbar <Akbar.Rahman@interdigi= tal.com> wrote:

Hi,

=A0

=A0

As per m= y action from the IETF-Atlanta meeting, I have reviewed:

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">=A0

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-02.txt

=A0

and have= the following comments:

=A0=

1)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Section 1, 4th par= agraph

=B7=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 Can you give some more guidance (q= ualitative or quantitative) as to when the two =A0enhancements covered in t= his I-D should be used over the baseline (RFC6224) solution?=A0 A (small) s= eparate section to cover this question in the Overview (section 3) would be= very helpful.

=A0

2)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <= u>Section 3.2, Figure 2

=B7=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 This figure should be re-drawn to match the conventions of Figur= e 1 (or vice versa).=A0 Since Figure 1 and Figure 2 are supposed to illustr= ate the two main options of the I-D, it is unfortunate that they are curren= tly using different conventions (e.g. Fig. 2 shows MN movement, while Fig. = 1 does not).

=A0

3)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <= u>Section 6

=B7=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Fo= r completeness, I think you need a (short) new section similar to this one = for the MR.

=A0

4)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <= u>Section 9

=B7=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ne= eds to be updated to cover section 5.1.2 =93Type=94

=A0

5)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <= u>Section 10

=B7=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 B= ut isn=92t there protocol modifications proposed, for example, in section 5= .1.1?

=B7=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 Also, the MTMA is introduced as a = new node not existing in previous PMIP architectures.=A0 So definitely some= discussion is needed to show the security considerations of the MTMA.=A0 P= erhaps the same is needed for the MR in the Direct Routing option?

=A0

6)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <= u>General =96 Overall, the document is well written and in good shape, = and I support in progressing it further once the updates above are made.

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

/Akbar

=A0

=

_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
multimob@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob


--f46d0421a78bae156f04d2cbc405-- From stig@venaas.com Thu Jan 10 11:50:59 2013 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 2E29B21F8596; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:50:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 M7KDaVbufw7n; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:50:57 -0800 (PST) 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 DFEA721F85AC; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:50:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.154.208.145] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B2A47FFE; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:50:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50EF1B9B.8050506@venaas.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:50:51 -0800 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" References: <50E65CC8.7030307@venaas.com> <50E6FC13.8090802@concordia.ca> <50E706BF.4020102@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> In-Reply-To: <50E706BF.4020102@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: multimob@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] [pim] Adoption of draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-wireless-mobile-02 as a pim wg work item 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: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:50:59 -0000 On 1/4/2013 8:43 AM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote: > Hi Stig, Bill, > > I would also see this work rather in the PIM WG, as this asks for > detailed IGMP/MLD knowledge ... Thanks. Thomas, and others, do you also support adoption of the current version as a pim WG document? Stig > > Cheers, > > Thomas > > On 04.01.2013 16:58, John William Atwood wrote: >> I support the adoption of this draft in the PIM WG, as a working group >> item. I agree that PIM is the right place to do this work, because PIM >> WG has the mandate for work on IGMP/MLD, and because the work applies >> more generally than just to mobile environments. >> >> Bill >> >> On 1/3/2013 11:38 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: >>> At the pim wg meeting in Atlanta there were 5 people supporting >>> working on this in the pim wg, none against. We would like to do >>> an adoption call to see if we are ready to adopt this as a pim wg >>> work item. >>> >>> Note that this has also been presented in multimob and there has >>> been some discussion about which wg is the most suitable. Mike and >>> I believe the pim wg is a good place to do this as the pim wg is >>> currently responsible for IGMP/MLD protocol work and has expertise >>> in this area. Multimob has interest in this though, so we certainly >>> want members of multimob to participate. >>> >>> If we through this adoption call decide that we want to adopt this in >>> pim, we'll verify with the ADs responsible for pim and multimob that >>> this is reasonable. >>> >>> I'm also sending a note about this to multimob, so that they can get >>> a chance to voice their opinion. >>> >>> If you are in favor or against adopting this draft in the pim wg, >>> please send an email to the pim wg list with your opinion. Please >>> do so by Thursday January 17th. >>> >>> Stig >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pim mailing list >>> pim@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim >> > From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Tue Jan 29 09:27:59 2013 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 8758C21F8A06 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:27:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, 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 ZHlrFy8g+rTJ for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:27:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com (mail-lb0-f179.google.com [209.85.217.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9BC121F8A05 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:27:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id j14so1050723lbo.38 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:27:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=cJ1++7Vp1aM0UNGpXwZzpJXv4/RJ2YihBr8o9tiYyLg=; b=fanGjtq9hLLOP0P6NL2oq8BJjCRs3sS8OwnJWKstdUsojck4PDqiIM5JhU89uvDsZ0 8RmrvN7xK2+I7NE07tXW3jQFg9jhm2crMYYiGIckwtoMofBtsAZbcw7r0uo2iy67aCQP 5SrUcOlZi/j/1HajJN2KBrY/kY/Hse6Wrhly0pnaDIgrRoOrpxa/LMzsDlEN1+fTrQrv iW79F+bAUYlu+PoWomGBEZyNGzozOF8ABNkSjsfn0eb2PjzMR287898QdH58HxG/ypMX YA7wWiZLeCpJxmLkMBdanehH0CLOyVBzbWM2mry6RpS/7kZmFGe85Jcw3xn4NUyCUwRP +J2A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.46.199 with SMTP id x7mr762792lbm.109.1359480477684; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:27:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.78.37 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:27:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:27:57 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: multimob@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5540568f3931504d470b6d9 Subject: [multimob] Review of draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-02 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, 29 Jan 2013 17:27:59 -0000 --bcaec5540568f3931504d470b6d9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Extract from IETF 85 minutes: 2) Juan Carlos (JC)- Tunnel Convergence WG draft update - Volunteers to review I-D (soon)- Hitoshi, Akbar will review the draft Hitoshi, Bill, people cc'ed, will you please READ the drafts (WG and active) and post your COMMENTS? --bcaec5540568f3931504d470b6d9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Extract from IETF 85 minutes:
2) Juan Carlos (JC)- Tunnel Convergen=
ce WG draft update

- Volunteers to review I-D (soon)- Hitoshi=
, Akbar will review the draft


Hitoshi, Bill, people cc'= ;ed, will you please READ the drafts (WG and active) and post your COMMENTS= ?
--bcaec5540568f3931504d470b6d9-- From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Wed Jan 30 15:27:52 2013 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 16EB821F87C3 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:27:52 -0800 (PST) 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 Cg7S2dYnhJzM for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:27:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x22f.google.com (mail-la0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC7121F87CC for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:27:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id fj20so1509513lab.20 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:27:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=XkIWNkBEsHzkVms6lpd5KKlOfVsYhRALjomjUVswu0M=; b=YJcjfbN9dxCTfMhQ20gGyokkZ2kK9rhcJavssHBJRJBwvIrdg2EQxJCraZB2saGrIc GxyPfJInNeVFvFO2cZ6f7h7w3GLunLKQkBnqlqcc7NP9R5b7F8kf+ZofddhSpAuJApjP q9kixuUzS9IQhoVZ5o/8o3oeNgEE8SdOCoTCslYK7vFTwx2HGF/XnD5G3YCuECf1cIF1 GxCHpBaDk+vrA5mNllHMfT7rZDlTQxXbVfABza9sE83z3t5bS5pUg6+6ufq069PJb1JE xQMMEJhWb5E4cvB5kobQfUFcgQgqftiEOn3cvqhaceqv17gMe+wOt9eySMKwroCwSDZH 7epA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.162.1 with SMTP id xw1mr6177760lab.3.1359588470008; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:27:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.28.168 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:27:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:27:49 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: multimob@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042ef4a5cbac0b04d489db32 Subject: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-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: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:27:52 -0000 --f46d042ef4a5cbac0b04d489db32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Carlos, authors, Some initial comments on your draft: Section 4.2 states that two new flags are defined but Flag A is not used in the line. Subscription Query/Response messages: why not use the Update Notification message in draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-00? Why is it necessary to define messages other than PBU/PBA from MAG to LMA, i.e. Act Ind? Regarding Figs 1 & 2, and also the Flag A, MLD Done is only in MLDv1 and has been removed from MLDv2, check Appendix B in RFC 3810. MLD Done was mimicking IGMPv2 Leave message which is not mentioned in IPv4 support. The fact that MLD Done (or IGMP Leave) no longer available in SSM makes me question the A Flag. How could LMA sustain a valid value of the A Flag? OTOH, A Flag is only used for optimization, as shown in Figure 6. Would it be possible to not define A Flag and use S Flag? Regards, Behcet --f46d042ef4a5cbac0b04d489db32 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Carlos, authors,

Some initial comments on your draft:
Section = 4.2 states that two new flags are defined but Flag A is not used in the lin= e.

Subscription Query/Response messages: why not use the Update Not= ification message in draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-00?

Why is it necessary to define messages other than PBU/PBA from MAG to L= MA, i.e. Act Ind?

Regarding Figs 1 & 2, and also the Flag A, MLD= Done is only in MLDv1 and has been removed from MLDv2, check Appendix B in= RFC 3810.

MLD Done was mimicking IGMPv2 Leave message which is not mentioned in I= Pv4 support.

The fact that MLD Done (or IGMP Leave) no longer availa= ble in SSM makes me question the A Flag. How could LMA sustain a valid valu= e of the A Flag?
OTOH, A Flag is only used for optimization, as shown in Figure 6.
Would = it be possible to not define A Flag and use S Flag?

Regards,

= Behcet

--f46d042ef4a5cbac0b04d489db32--