From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Jan 5 14:20:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C681AD8E2; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:20:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QyktdZXtJEvv; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:20:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5F01AD8D5; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:20:24 -0800 (PST) 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: 4.90.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140105222024.4141.8818.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 14:20:24 -0800 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: [multimob] I-D Action: draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07.txt X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 22:20:27 -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 : Mobile Multicast Sender Support in Proxy Mobile I= Pv6 (PMIPv6) Domains Authors : Thomas C. Schmidt Shuai Gao Hong-Ke Zhang Matthias Waehlisch Filename : draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2014-01-05 Abstract: Multicast communication can be enabled in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains via the Local Mobility Anchors by deploying MLD proxy functions at Mobile Access Gateways, via a direct traffic distribution within an ISP's access network, or by selective route optimization schemes. This document describes a base solution and an experimental protocol to support of mobile multicast senders in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains for all three scenarios. Protocol optimizations for synchronizing PMIPv6 with PIM, as well as a peering function for MLD Proxies are defined. Mobile sources always remain agnostic of multicast mobility operations. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From prvs=075770ff5=schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de Sun Jan 5 14:26:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C7EC1AD8EC for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:26:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.688 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mn0n1tk3BmJi for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:26:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de (mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de [141.22.6.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD5B1AD8D5 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:26:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([141.22.30.74]) by mail6.is.haw-hamburg.de with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 05 Jan 2014 23:26:07 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB3010679D7 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:26:07 +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 15156-03 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:26:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.178.33] (e178063227.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.63.227]) (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 16BB110679CF for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:26:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52C9DBFB.2040803@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 23:26:03 +0100 From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: multimob@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: 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 Subject: Re: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 22:26:19 -0000 Dear all, finally we managed to do a final polishing of the draft. Thanks to Behcet, Dirk and Sebastian for your feedback: All hints for improvements should have made it into the document. I guess, we're now ready to move forward. Cheers, Thomas On 25.11.2013 18:38, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Dear all, > > WGLC on > draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 > > has ended. > > > The authors, please submit your revised version. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > -- 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 Mon Jan 6 09:32:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04A01AE128 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:32:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4iIF31TKM0v6 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:32:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x236.google.com (mail-la0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92DE1AE0C2 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:32:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id b8so10177612lan.13 for ; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:32:30 -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=5AxkWAIoaEVPIVRP35YjKSjJ2INjELjbdmrqe6QxW30=; b=Q9WBm/zqzFNnO2oFM2GmsOVohnUpKhOXW5oUF8xg9vOs6z+m445fQbdqTUeqqrOW3Q cnIr93cfmkKGrGhznB0xXOK06B6fTZ/qRWhIEf2PBvVEZSJIduZBEVJ99m+cC4eUzbMb brBYQGxrd9cF9ah3WUPUFoN0I3jsZvtMmHxJgIdmdMDtNt3rGyHSnPw5E7LA48XRMSDg Kqw+HARorfxTnBlroiL07ggQXn8vC5zdQqyDgW9LunpGRUWhpQxLsvtxrfycqEZfQdue RcPgL+KHd43gRkCz02mQDPdCTTt0EkaaJLYtwIKFhNHMhwpqabkM0liTihfc7DVe3nbQ ZBQA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.116.46 with SMTP id jt14mr1588897lab.31.1389029550604; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:32:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.170.193 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:32:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52C9DBFB.2040803@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> References: <52C9DBFB.2040803@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:32:30 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c35624f2451604ef50a41a Cc: "multimob@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 17:32:42 -0000 --001a11c35624f2451604ef50a41a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Thomas, Thanks for coming up with the revision. I don't know about others (Dirk and Sebastian) but I would like to see a reply to my review. Regards, Behcet On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt < schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> wrote: > Dear all, > > finally we managed to do a final polishing of the draft. > > Thanks to Behcet, Dirk and Sebastian for your feedback: All hints for > improvements should have made it into the document. > > I guess, we're now ready to move forward. > > Cheers, > > > Thomas > > On 25.11.2013 18:38, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> WGLC on >> draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 >> >> has ended. >> >> >> The authors, please submit your revised version. >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> multimob mailing list >> multimob@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >> >> > -- > > 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: +49-40-42875-84= 09=B0 > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > --001a11c35624f2451604ef50a41a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Thomas,

Thanks for com= ing up with the revision.

I don't know about others (Dirk = and Sebastian) but I would like to see a reply to my review.

Regards,

Behcet

On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Thomas C. Schm= idt <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> wrot= e:
Dear all,

finally we managed to do a final polishing of the draft.

Thanks to Behcet, Dirk and Sebastian for your feedback: All hints for impro= vements should have made it into the document.

I guess, we're now ready to move forward.

Cheers,


Thomas

On 25.11.2013 18:38, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Dear all,

WGLC on
draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06

has ended.


The authors, please submit your revised version.

Regards,

Behcet


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


--

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

--001a11c35624f2451604ef50a41a-- From Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Mon Jan 6 09:58:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3931AE13D for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:58:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.788 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FvZO9j-J-Cub for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:58:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail43.telekom.de (tcmail43.telekom.de [80.149.113.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245EC1AE128 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:58:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from he113675.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.28]) by tcmail41.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 06 Jan 2014 18:58:21 +0100 Received: from HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.124]) by HE113675.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:58:21 +0100 From: To: , Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:58:20 +0100 Thread-Topic: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 Thread-Index: Ac8KZSgI8tQS528KRuO3boopq9C8EQAoaMsA Message-ID: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2DA5C5DA53@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <52C9DBFB.2040803@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> In-Reply-To: <52C9DBFB.2040803@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 17:58:33 -0000 Dear Thomas and co-authors, Thanks for your update in version -07 (!). I see my minor comment addressed= in the new version ... the others had already made it to version -05 I thi= nk. A nit I detected but which may be changed in the next major revision is= that the latest version of SIAL reference is meanwhile draft-ietf-multimob= -handover-optimization-07. ;-) So I am fine with moving forward ... Best regards and HNY! Dirk -----Original Message----- From: multimob [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas C. Sc= hmidt Sent: Sonntag, 5. Januar 2014 23:26 To: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 Dear all, finally we managed to do a final polishing of the draft. Thanks to Behcet, Dirk and Sebastian for your feedback: All hints for impro= vements should have made it into the document. I guess, we're now ready to move forward. Cheers, Thomas On 25.11.2013 18:38, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Dear all, > > WGLC on > draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 > > has ended. > > > The authors, please submit your revised version. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > --=20 Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt =B0 Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7= =B0 =B0 Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany= =B0 =B0 http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452= =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 From schmidt@fhtw-berlin.de Mon Jan 6 10:08:34 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C4B1AE13D for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:08:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.85 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aYmqTKGy1Ny6 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:08:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail2.rz.htw-berlin.de (mail2.rz.htw-berlin.de [141.45.10.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8407C1AE136 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:08:32 -0800 (PST) Envelope-to: multimob@ietf.org Received: from g231224020.adsl.alicedsl.de ([92.231.224.20] helo=[192.168.178.33]) by mail2.rz.htw-berlin.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1W0Eb9-000I6n-EB for multimob@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 19:08:23 +0100 Message-ID: <52CAF113.90004@fhtw-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 19:08:19 +0100 From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: multimob@ietf.org References: <52C9DBFB.2040803@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2DA5C5DA53@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> In-Reply-To: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2DA5C5DA53@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-HTW-SPAMINFO: this message was scanned by eXpurgate (http://www.eleven.de) X-HTW-DELIVERED-TO: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 18:08:35 -0000 Hi Dirk, thanks. Regarding the draft references: there seems to be a bug in the ID reference DB, which misses the latest draft versions. I opened a ticket already yesterday, but no answer so far. This seems to relate to several drafts, probably updates ran out of sync ... Cheers, Thomas On 06.01.2014 18:58, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de wrote: > Dear Thomas and co-authors, > Thanks for your update in version -07 (!). I see my minor comment addressed in the new version ... the others had already made it to version -05 I think. A nit I detected but which may be changed in the next major revision is that the latest version of SIAL reference is meanwhile draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-07. > ;-) > So I am fine with moving forward ... > > Best regards and HNY! > Dirk > > -----Original Message----- > From: multimob [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas C. Schmidt > Sent: Sonntag, 5. Januar 2014 23:26 > To: multimob@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 > > Dear all, > > finally we managed to do a final polishing of the draft. > > Thanks to Behcet, Dirk and Sebastian for your feedback: All hints for improvements should have made it into the document. > > I guess, we're now ready to move forward. > > Cheers, > > Thomas > > On 25.11.2013 18:38, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> WGLC on >> draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 >> >> has ended. >> >> >> The authors, please submit your revised version. >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> multimob mailing list >> multimob@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >> > From prvs=07618bfa0=schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de Mon Jan 6 10:24:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419A91AE159 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:24:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YkoGwga1dBCn for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:24:53 -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 822B31AE0F7 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:24:51 -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; 06 Jan 2014 19:24:42 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2351110679D7; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 19:24:42 +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 10940-06; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 19:24:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.178.33] (g231224020.adsl.alicedsl.de [92.231.224.20]) (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 4D0C210679CF; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 19:24:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52CAF4E4.70203@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 19:24:36 +0100 From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sarikaya@ieee.org References: <52C9DBFB.2040803@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> In-Reply-To: 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" Subject: Re: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 18:24:56 -0000 Hi Behcet, On 06.01.2014 18:32, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > I don't know about others (Dirk and Sebastian) but I would like to see a > reply to my review. > Dirk and Sebastian had only few straight-forward editorials/typos ... which have been just corrected. Regarding your review, please see inline: On 24.10.2013 22:49, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:> > > Here are my comments on this draft. You can take it as part of WGLC > comments. WGLC will be issued shortly. > > abstract and introduction > selective route optimization schemes - add using multicast tree mobility > anchor or multicast capable LMA > Details of the schemes are already part of the introduction (incl. various refs). For the sake of conciseness of the abstract, we would prefer to stick to the abstract summary "selective route optimization schemes", instead of naming all approaches individually. > Figs 1 & 2 - change their placement and reformat, this may lead to the > whole figure in one page > Thanks - done. > Sec. 3.2.2 - to enable multicast data > transition from an MN - replace transition with transmission? > Thanks - done. > Sec. 3.2.3.1 sending > PIM registers to the RP - this is explained in Sec. 4.3.2, add pointer > > RPF (Reverse Path Forwarding) - Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) > > BIDIR PIM - BIDIR-PIM > Thanks - all done. > Sec. 3.2.4 > the multicast > routing information base (MRIB) of the MAG - I thought this was not > possible? later on seems to be clarified in Sec. 4.3 & 4.4 (I mean > according to our face-to-face conversations in the past?) > In this draft, we describe the setting of an MRIB in agreement with the topology of the access network. Like a unicast RIB, an MRIB can of course always express a regular, topology-oriented routing according to destination addresses in IP headers. Our discussions, which also took place on the mailing list earlier and in WG meetings, were concerned with policy-based PMIP routing according to source addresses. This cannot be expressed in a regular MRIB. However, we are not talking about policy routing here in the draft, so no conflict. > Sec. 3.2.5 > There is no mechanism to suppress upstream > forwarding in the absence of receivers. - this is solved in Sec. > 5, add a pointer to the section that brings some solution > Thanks, done. > Sec. 4.3 4.4 & Fig. 3 (b) > see comment above on PIM at MAG > Thanks - done, > Sec. 4.3.6 should be subsection of 4.3.5? > No, as Section 4.3.5 is about PIM-SSM, and Section 4.3.5 discusses an orthogonal aspect (Handover Optimization) for both, PIM-SM and PIM-SSM. > Sec. 5.3 Operations at the Multicast Sender - the operation described > here is not performed by the MN which is the multicast source/sender, so > clarify > > same in Sec. 5.4. Operations at the Multicast Listener > Thanks - both done. > Sec. 5.4 > ASM with IGMPv3/MLDv2 - why not have this discussion in the first case, > i.e. ASM with IGMPv2/MLDv1? > The first itemization is about ASM with IGMPv2/MLDv1 - it's on the previous page, so may be you overlooked. > Fig. 1 caption is too long - shorten it and carry the text to Sec. 3.1. > Thanks, done. > In the abstract, > This document describes the support of mobile multicast senders - This > document describes an experimental protocol to support mobile multicast > senders > Thanks, also done ... even though I missed to correct a preposition ... it's already corrected for the next version. Best regards, Thomas > > On 25.11.2013 18:38, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > Dear all, > > WGLC on > draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-__source-06 > > has ended. > > > The authors, please submit your revised version. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > > _________________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/multimob > > > > -- > > 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 ° > _________________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/multimob > > > -- 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 Mon Jan 6 14:22:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505AB1AE27E for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:22:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cufc66KnrhYi for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:22:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x229.google.com (mail-la0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E8E1AE28B for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id c6so5215841lan.28 for ; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 14:22:05 -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=chDCoh8hsD8pwbPI3DPBzno5OS0BUgWSRb6KIrgJ3UI=; b=cm7mrsriyAblbU70HzBpugu428bBqzvr3tuS7Zu8mRf1nQDHdMYmqUAfftqNgVNRaF Mg6B0ba1N0zxAQjeFHdfpKd/DCKFtlqwrTgJ8P7/P7gWabaemtmfYI62JC2L1gCYB2Cb HaR8JYfLyL7mvYKVvvZ5PL9UJBhbH1UwyBdWK+UQ6eoPf4N7Szt/x35G20l+q9f28vka PXIdYVAp1QFBJQ2xm96F0s7BSl9DAoA7BPjjRz2mpHYgVQIXyWbxr1jN5MjxJF3bDniC wK8YkCIQqf/+WOde9LeV05xlXDlo8HVcWpsRKjr+6LV5s7+9nV4sgUTtExxMDdqV9OH/ h1/g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.54.202 with SMTP id l10mr1204260lbp.83.1389046924823; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 14:22:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.170.193 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:22:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52CAF4E4.70203@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> References: <52C9DBFB.2040803@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <52CAF4E4.70203@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:22:04 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c39e2287d2d104ef54b0a4 Cc: "multimob@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 22:22:17 -0000 --001a11c39e2287d2d104ef54b0a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Thomas, See inline. Regards, Behcet On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt < schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> wrote: > Hi Behcet, > > > On 06.01.2014 18:32, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > I don't know about others (Dirk and Sebastian) but I would like to see a >> reply to my review. >> >> > Dirk and Sebastian had only few straight-forward editorials/typos ... > which have been just corrected. > > Regarding your review, please see inline: > > On 24.10.2013 22:49, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:> > >> >> Here are my comments on this draft. You can take it as part of WGLC >> comments. WGLC will be issued shortly. >> >> abstract and introduction >> selective route optimization schemes - add using multicast tree mobility >> anchor or multicast capable LMA >> >> > Details of the schemes are already part of the introduction (incl. variou= s > refs). For the sake of conciseness of the abstract, we would prefer to > stick to the abstract summary "selective route optimization schemes", > instead of naming all approaches individually. > > Figs 1 & 2 - change their placement and reformat, this may lead to the >> whole figure in one page >> >> > Thanks - done. > > Sec. 3.2.2 - to enable multicast data >> transition from an MN - replace transition with transmission? >> >> > Thanks - done. > > Sec. 3.2.3.1 sending >> PIM registers to the RP - this is explained in Sec. 4.3.2, add point= er >> >> RPF (Reverse Path Forwarding) - Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) >> >> BIDIR PIM - BIDIR-PIM >> >> > Thanks - all done. > > Sec. 3.2.4 >> the multicast >> routing information base (MRIB) of the MAG - I thought this was not >> possible? later on seems to be clarified in Sec. 4.3 & 4.4 (I mean >> according to our face-to-face conversations in the past?) >> >> > In this draft, we describe the setting of an MRIB in agreement with the > topology of the access network. Like a unicast RIB, an MRIB can of course > always express a regular, topology-oriented routing according to > destination addresses in IP headers. > > Our discussions, which also took place on the mailing list earlier and in > WG meetings, were concerned with policy-based PMIP routing according to > source addresses. This cannot be expressed in a regular MRIB. > > Where did you get this from? Any references? > However, we are not talking about policy routing here in the draft, so no > conflict. > > Sec. 3.2.5 >> There is no mechanism to suppress upstream >> forwarding in the absence of receivers. - this is solved in Sec. >> 5, add a pointer to the section that brings some solution >> >> > Thanks, done. > > Sec. 4.3 4.4 & Fig. 3 (b) >> see comment above on PIM at MAG >> >> Thanks - done, > > Sec. 4.3.6 should be subsection of 4.3.5? >> >> > No, as Section 4.3.5 is about PIM-SSM, and Section 4.3.5 discusses an > orthogonal aspect (Handover Optimization) for both, PIM-SM and PIM-SSM. > > Sec. 5.3 Operations at the Multicast Sender - the operation described >> here is not performed by the MN which is the multicast source/sender, so >> clarify >> >> same in Sec. 5.4. Operations at the Multicast Listener >> >> > Thanks - both done. > > Sec. 5.4 >> ASM with IGMPv3/MLDv2 - why not have this discussion in the first case, >> i.e. ASM with IGMPv2/MLDv1? >> >> > The first itemization is about ASM with IGMPv2/MLDv1 - it's on the > previous page, so may be you overlooked. > > Fig. 1 caption is too long - shorten it and carry the text to Sec. 3.1. >> >> > Thanks, done. > > In the abstract, >> This document describes the support of mobile multicast senders - This >> document describes an experimental protocol to support mobile multicast >> senders >> >> > Thanks, also done ... even though I missed to correct a preposition ... > it's already corrected for the next version. > > Best regards, > > Thomas > > > >> On 25.11.2013 18:38, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> WGLC on >> draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-__source-06 >> >> >> has ended. >> >> >> The authors, please submit your revised version. >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> >> _________________________________________________ >> multimob mailing list >> multimob@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/multimob >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt >> =B0 Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berline= r >> Tor 7 =B0 >> =B0 Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, >> Germany =B0 >> =B0 http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: >> +49-40-42875-8452 =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 >> >> >> >> > -- > > 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: +49-40-42875-84= 09=B0 > --001a11c39e2287d2d104ef54b0a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Thomas,
See inline.
Regards,

Behcet

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> wrote:
Hi Behcet,


On 06.01.2014 18:32, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

I don't know about others (Dirk and Sebastian) but I would like to see = a
reply to my review.


Dirk and Sebastian had only few straight-forward editorials/typos ... which= have been just corrected.

Regarding your review, please see inline:

On 24.10.2013 22:49, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:>

Here are my comments on this draft. You can take it as part of WGLC
comments. WGLC will be issued shortly.

abstract and introduction
selective route optimization schemes - add using multicast tree mobility anchor or multicast capable LMA


Details of the schemes are already part of the introduction (incl. various = refs). For the sake of conciseness of the abstract, we would prefer to stic= k to the abstract summary "selective route optimization schemes",= instead of naming all approaches individually.

Figs 1 & 2 =A0- change their placement and reformat, this may lead to t= he
whole figure in one page


Thanks - done.

Sec. 3.2.2 - to enable multicast data
=A0 =A0 transition from an MN =A0- replace transition with transmission?

Thanks - done.

Sec. 3.2.3.1 sending
=A0 =A0 PIM registers to the RP - this is explained in Sec. 4.3.2, add poin= ter

RPF (Reverse Path Forwarding) - Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF)

BIDIR PIM - BIDIR-PIM


Thanks - all done.

Sec. 3.2.4
the multicast
=A0 =A0 routing information base (MRIB) of the MAG - I thought this was not=
possible? later on seems to be clarified in Sec. 4.3 & 4.4 (I mean
according to our face-to-face conversations in the past?)


In this draft, we describe the setting of an MRIB in agreement with the top= ology of the access network. Like a unicast RIB, an MRIB can of course alwa= ys express a regular, topology-oriented routing according to destination ad= dresses in IP headers.

Our discussions, which also took place on the mailing list earlier and in W= G meetings, were concerned with policy-based PMIP routing according to sour= ce addresses. This cannot be expressed in a regular MRIB.


Where did you get this from? Any refer= ences?

=A0
However, we are not talking about policy routing here in the draft, so no c= onflict.

Sec. 3.2.5
There is no mechanism to suppress upstream
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0forwarding in the absence of receivers. - this is solved in = Sec.
5, add a pointer to the section that brings some solution


Thanks, done.

Sec. 4.3 4.4 & Fig. 3 (b)
=A0 see comment above on PIM at MAG

Thanks - done,

Sec. 4.3.6 should be subsection =A0of 4.3.5?


No, as Section 4.3.5 is about PIM-SSM, and Section 4.3.5 discusses an ortho= gonal aspect (Handover Optimization) for both, PIM-SM and PIM-SSM.

Sec. 5.3 Operations at the Multicast Sender - the operation described
here is not performed by the MN which is the multicast source/sender, so clarify

same in Sec. 5.4. Operations at the Multicast Listener


Thanks - both done.

Sec. 5.4
ASM with IGMPv3/MLDv2 =A0- why not have this discussion in the first case,<= br> i.e. ASM with IGMPv2/MLDv1?


The first itemization is about ASM with IGMPv2/MLDv1 - it's on the prev= ious page, so may be you overlooked.

Fig. 1 caption is too long - shorten it and carry the text to Sec. 3.1.


Thanks, done.

In the abstract,
This document describes the support of mobile multicast senders - This
document describes an experimental protocol to support mobile multicast
senders


Thanks, also done ... even though I missed to correct a preposition ... it&= #39;s already corrected for the next version.

Best regards,

Thomas



=A0 =A0 On 25.11.2013 18:38, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Dear all,

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 WGLC on
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-__source-06


=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 has ended.


=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The authors, please submit your revised version.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Regards,

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Behcet


=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 _________________________________________________ =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 multimob mailing list
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 mult= imob@ietf.org <mailto:multimob@ietf.org>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/multimob=

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob= >


=A0 =A0 --

=A0 =A0 Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
=A0 =A0 =B0 Hamburg University of Applied Sciences =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 Berliner
=A0 =A0 Tor 7 =B0
=A0 =A0 =B0 Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group =A0 =A020099 Hamb= urg,
=A0 =A0 Germany =B0
=A0 =A0 =B0 ht= tp://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Fon:
=A0 =A0 +49-40-42875-8452 <tel:%2B49-40-42875-8452> =B0
=A0 =A0 =B0 http://www.informatik.haw-__hamburg.de/~schmidt =A0 =A0 <http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt> = =A0 =A0Fax:
=A0 =A0 +49-40-42875-8409 <tel:%2B49-40-42875-8409> =B0
=A0 =A0 _________________________________________________
=A0 =A0 multimob mailing list
=A0 =A0 multimob@iet= f.org <mailto:multimob@ietf.org>
=A0 =A0 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/multimob
=A0 =A0 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>=



--

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

--001a11c39e2287d2d104ef54b0a4-- From prvs=07618bfa0=schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de Mon Jan 6 14:51:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F061AE2B5 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:51:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x72QJbC84lEy for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:51:28 -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 A08DF1AE2B2 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:51:28 -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; 06 Jan 2014 23:51:19 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3A010679D7; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 23:51:19 +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 19950-07; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 23:51:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.178.33] (g231224020.adsl.alicedsl.de [92.231.224.20]) (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 0368F10679CF; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 23:51:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52CB3363.1000407@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 23:51:15 +0100 From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sarikaya@ieee.org References: <52C9DBFB.2040803@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <52CAF4E4.70203@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> In-Reply-To: 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" Subject: Re: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 22:51:31 -0000 Hi Behcet, I'll shorten the history to make things more readable ... On 06.01.2014 23:22, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Sec. 3.2.4 > the multicast > routing information base (MRIB) of the MAG - I thought this > was not > possible? later on seems to be clarified in Sec. 4.3 & 4.4 (I mean > according to our face-to-face conversations in the past?) > > > In this draft, we describe the setting of an MRIB in agreement with > the topology of the access network. Like a unicast RIB, an MRIB can > of course always express a regular, topology-oriented routing > according to destination addresses in IP headers. > > Our discussions, which also took place on the mailing list earlier > and in WG meetings, were concerned with policy-based PMIP routing > according to source addresses. This cannot be expressed in a regular > MRIB. > > > Where did you get this from? Any references? > Well, the relevant part in the context of this draft is that one can express regular, topology-oriented routing in an access network within a regular routing table (unicast as well as multicast). It is 'sort of the core of IP routing', so I guess there is no doubt about that and a reference is not needed (otherwise we would need to recall the fundamentals of IP routing). The other side about policy-based routing in PMIP was discussed some time ago, but is not mentioned in the draft. So there is no need to make a reference to it. If you are interested in the discussion, I think major parts have been on the list about two years ago. There were contributions from Sri and in particular Stig provided longer explanations on what can be possibly done and what not. But this is all outside the current spec (and of any spec that is MULTIMOB WG Item), so no need to return to it. Cheers, Thomas -- 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 Thu Jan 9 10:20:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DBCA1AE0CD for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:20:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9NivX49l0ZXm for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:20:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x22a.google.com (mail-la0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D151AE075 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:20:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id ec20so2477757lab.1 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 10:20:22 -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=9T2GD5Pv4CfeGUBSCHN2Om6852jJaehLTUvNoOFoVOo=; b=XVVLsInwO7frhBqZPOvOIutmcXrkIeu33P2LnIHoEI7cymkMr5gD58OxCDPy7LtA1f ffhTOR3t4HqJ7bJY6vHnCs8xWiHc9diSmMxsj+HJT9oZicLl8PJom9MSSsoDE0uiz/W8 VX0mCS0vdzO/u9qG9oA2mIqifHrYLfTP83NSKP+oOw2ZtumW5f4xlkfsDcjxJRDxKqWB 8eUh+0C3sdeYLl4BPAvVJWcxMkD2lAMdopyYjImyyVJUZ05n6iQOj+YUO/O6bDwTObEg 4Em8ySsaotwXySI+ONTstt5L7fDoW6mJYOgyesi3WCz2/SNfQziwreuSY59/pATgalUQ c7jg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.1.5 with SMTP id 5mr1981971lai.20.1389291622567; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 10:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.170.193 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:20:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52CB3363.1000407@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> References: <52C9DBFB.2040803@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <52CAF4E4.70203@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <52CB3363.1000407@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:20:22 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c6644a7119f04ef8da998 Cc: Hitoshi Asaeda , "multimob@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 18:20:35 -0000 --089e013c6644a7119f04ef8da998 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Thomas, My question was not related to this document specifically. So my conclusion from your reply is that there is no written document on so-called policy routing in PMIP. Certainly RFC 5213 does not mention it. Is it fair to say that? You are referring to some possible email messages, any links? (I copied Hitoshi who was very interested in this). BTW we will shepherd your document to IESG very soon. Regards, On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt < schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> wrote: > Hi Behcet, > > I'll shorten the history to make things more readable ... > > > On 06.01.2014 23:22, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > Sec. 3.2.4 >> the multicast >> routing information base (MRIB) of the MAG - I thought this >> was not >> possible? later on seems to be clarified in Sec. 4.3 & 4.4 (I me= an >> according to our face-to-face conversations in the past?) >> >> >> In this draft, we describe the setting of an MRIB in agreement with >> the topology of the access network. Like a unicast RIB, an MRIB can >> of course always express a regular, topology-oriented routing >> according to destination addresses in IP headers. >> >> Our discussions, which also took place on the mailing list earlier >> and in WG meetings, were concerned with policy-based PMIP routing >> according to source addresses. This cannot be expressed in a regular >> MRIB. >> >> >> Where did you get this from? Any references? >> >> > Well, the relevant part in the context of this draft is that one can > express regular, topology-oriented routing in an access network within a > regular routing table (unicast as well as multicast). It is 'sort of the > core of IP routing', so I guess there is no doubt about that and a > reference is not needed (otherwise we would need to recall the fundamenta= ls > of IP routing). > > The other side about policy-based routing in PMIP was discussed some time > ago, but is not mentioned in the draft. So there is no need to make a > reference to it. > > If you are interested in the discussion, I think major parts have been on > the list about two years ago. There were contributions from Sri and in > particular Stig provided longer explanations on what can be possibly done > and what not. > > But this is all outside the current spec (and of any spec that is MULTIMO= B > WG Item), so no need to return to it. > > Cheers, > > Thomas > > > > -- > > 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: +49-40-42875-84= 09=B0 > --089e013c6644a7119f04ef8da998 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Thomas,

My questi= on was not related to this document specifically.
So my conclusio= n from your reply is that there is no written document on so-called policy = routing in PMIP. Certainly RFC 5213 does not mention it.

Is it fair to say that?

You are referring to some possible email= messages, any links?



(I copied Hitoshi who was = very interested in this).


BTW we will shepherd your d= ocument to IESG very soon.

Regards,


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> wrote:
Hi Behcet,

I'll shorten the history to make things more readable ...


On 06.01.2014 23:22, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Sec. 3.2.4
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the multicast
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0routing information base (MRIB) of the MAG - I t= hought this
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 was not
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 possible? later on seems to be clarified in Sec. 4.3 & = 4.4 (I mean
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 according to our face-to-face conversations in the past?)

=A0 =A0 In this draft, we describe the setting of an MRIB in agreement with=
=A0 =A0 the topology of the access network. Like a unicast RIB, an MRIB can=
=A0 =A0 of course always express a regular, topology-oriented routing
=A0 =A0 according to destination addresses in IP headers.

=A0 =A0 Our discussions, which also took place on the mailing list earlier<= br> =A0 =A0 and in WG meetings, were concerned with policy-based PMIP routing =A0 =A0 according to source addresses. This cannot be expressed in a regula= r
=A0 =A0 MRIB.


Where did you get this from? Any references?


Well, the relevant part in the context of this draft is that one can expres= s regular, topology-oriented routing in an access network within a regular = routing table (unicast as well as multicast). It is 'sort of the core o= f IP routing', so I guess there is no doubt about that and a reference = is not needed (otherwise we would need to recall the fundamentals of IP rou= ting).

The other side about policy-based routing in PMIP was discussed some time a= go, but is not mentioned in the draft. So there is no need to make a refere= nce to it.

If you are interested in the discussion, I think major parts have been on t= he list about two years ago. There were contributions from Sri and in parti= cular Stig provided longer explanations on what can be possibly done and wh= at not.

But this is all outside the current spec (and of any spec that is MULTIMOB = WG Item), so no need to return to it.

Cheers,

Thomas



--

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

--089e013c6644a7119f04ef8da998-- From prvs=07912bb8b=schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de Thu Jan 9 11:39:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E1FB1AE52F for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:39:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n40PT_55oLMx for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:39:53 -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 8739C1AE3A0 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:39:52 -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; 09 Jan 2014 20:39:41 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD7910679D7; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 20:39:41 +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 06756-01; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 20:39:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.171.40.58] (tmo-096-203.customers.d1-online.com [80.187.96.203]) (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 8BC5710679CF; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 20:39:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52CEFAD6.40300@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 20:39:02 +0100 From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Behcet Sarikaya Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at informatik.haw-hamburg.de Cc: "multimob@ietf.org" Subject: [multimob] PMIP Unicast Routing X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 19:39:56 -0000 Hi Behcet, On 09.01.2014 19:20, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > My question was not related to this document specifically. As far as I'm aware of, this subject is not related to any WG item of Multimob ... that's why I put it in a new thread. > So my conclusion from your reply is that there is no written document on > so-called policy routing in PMIP. Certainly RFC 5213 does not mention it. > PMIP describes unicast routing, only, not multicast. Forwarding from the MN is described in Section 6.10.5. There it says: " o On receiving a packet from a mobile node connected to its access link, the mobile access gateway MUST ensure that there is an established binding for that mobile node with its local mobility anchor before forwarding the packet directly to the destination or before tunneling the packet to the mobile node's local mobility anchor. ... o On receiving a packet from a mobile node connected to its access link, to a destination that is not directly connected, the packet MUST be forwarded to the local mobility anchor through the bi- directional tunnel established between itself and the mobile node's local mobility anchor. " Aside from a typo (not "to" but "by the local mobility anchor"), this describes a routing procedure, which is not regular IP routing (according to the destination address), but according to a 'policy' (the "established binding for that mobile node with its local mobility anchor"). Often, such forwarding decisions are referred to as 'policy-based' routing - RFC 5213 does not name this procedure, but describes it only verbally. When I used the term 'policy-based routing', I was referring to this quoted paragraphs on PMIP forwarding from the MN. The term is not important. What matters is that the forwarding decision is based on the source, not on the destination address. However, if you are interested in the nitty gritty details of PMIP, you should probably discuss with the real PMIP experts. I've neither designed, nor implemented PMIP. Best regards, Thomas -- 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 Thu Jan 9 12:12:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 672C11AE049 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:12:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iQJIaZQ3kuJ2 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:12:39 -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 BDCE61AE02E for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:12:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id eh20so334428lab.20 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:12:28 -0800 (PST) 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=zZ60zUXLpDA3CO5LjaR5kozHcidAkF9/DBAB8dM8/tc=; b=d1XRg/N8LJ3s8KHoEZ+CL3PHeRsvkxB0tNEKertj6U5i04qM5F3VaYUpKM4vvvrKaH 6VZ6xeTl3Y2iZP9gnK50KiXREF9XrUZIG9BVZDXJamW+laVQ5KnWqRSCGsTDj0XmPAfE 70p1c/PV5jN12idtKliiwQG/NOyozy4zri4rOKz/bfZrAxIBHmrpGwsiKft7SG6mqa4r juuob7IvL9bgqs5BqnSbaGRkgHaFprEIXcHagCyJo86KBEPCwXQXUuEzrxytZdtD5OXL tzE+6d0al7GHIUD46wLdHEkRKtX5QksS2beSAO+tUxTWmYqI62nsP4BApfiIjpqLhda0 NjiQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.184.169 with SMTP id ev9mr2049466lbc.25.1389298348492; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:12:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.170.193 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:12:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:12:28 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: "multimob@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3bfa88c899c04ef8f3a5c Subject: [multimob] Polling WG on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 20:12:40 -0000 --001a11c3bfa88c899c04ef8f3a5c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi all, Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like to get consensus opinion on one issue regarding this document that came up recently. Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list. ISSUE: Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver mobility, we only worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224. However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 covers PIM at MAG for source mobility starting with Section 4.3. Question: Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility, then say YES, if you do not support it then say NO. We need as many people as possible to express opinion on this issue. The deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014. If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors to remove PIM at MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the revised document to IESG. Regards, Behcet --001a11c3bfa88c899c04ef8f3a5c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,<= br>
Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like to get = consensus opinion on one issue regarding this document that came up recentl= y. Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list.

ISSUE:
Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for rec= eiver mobility, we only worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224.
Ho= wever draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 covers PIM at MAG for source mob= ility starting with Section 4.3.

Question:

Do you support covering PIM at MAG for sou= rce mobility, then say YES,

if you do not support it then say NO.
We need as many people as possible to express opinion on this i= ssue. The deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014.

If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors to remove= PIM at MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the revised document = to IESG.

Regards,

Behcet<= /div> --001a11c3bfa88c899c04ef8f3a5c-- From prvs=07912bb8b=schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de Thu Jan 9 12:36:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC211AE153 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:36:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.318 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NSw_A-0HLLzr for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:36:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de (mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de [141.22.6.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6BC01AE553 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:36:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([141.22.30.74]) by mail6.is.haw-hamburg.de with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 09 Jan 2014 21:36:36 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D6510679D7; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:36:36 +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 08661-02; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:36:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.197.135.172] (tmo-107-116.customers.d1-online.com [80.187.107.116]) (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 C03F610679CF; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:36:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52CF081A.9010608@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:35:38 +0100 From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sarikaya@ieee.org, "multimob@ietf.org" , Brian Haberman References: In-Reply-To: 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 Subject: Re: [multimob] Polling WG on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 20:36:50 -0000 Hi, I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to garble drafts after they had successfully passed WG last call. Am I mistaken, Brian? Cheers, Thomas On 09.01.2014 21:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi all, > > Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like to get consensus > opinion on one issue regarding this document that came up recently. > Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list. > > ISSUE: > Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver mobility, we only > worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224. > However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 covers PIM at MAG for > source mobility starting with Section 4.3. > > Question: > > Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility, then say YES, > > if you do not support it then say NO. > > We need as many people as possible to express opinion on this issue. The > deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014. > > If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors to remove PIM at > MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the revised document to IESG. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > -- 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 Thu Jan 9 12:51:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C12F21AE1AC for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:51:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gMkIGZ4snTYJ for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:51:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4C71AE159 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:51:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id l4so2757317lbv.13 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:51:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=7fgnDSiBGlmIEDtmOwNaA4yjlsHgGGSQFaok4z3T2p4=; b=vnZTLS7rEjtgByfagKm3dYqK9B7kDEui/01UlfURTc6vhAy7DLqyWUb2+MUwvPfTYo dosgNXMeoNxkQgRR7Fcc5+Z3HxwbT9M4Ws4uoorf0HTPjNXmZWoB3a4A5+b3zUivAZE2 7FErJAXsB2LYPGIGe4Oer024DDGEY0p9FjPtcB9hubCsqrKZ1y0wPx70Bgu1GsMMeg1G DJThcRIpHBkHcbPvUjsKYDgNqtEUZ5rHfSflOiGGhyTS+luLUbSXxua30uGSazXFn8ZS 8kqx3vmwy/vZbyULP26f+Qb2rTLPCagRiO1RIdlAneVvE+L0O6ubMm5YwEKRv0v3Enl7 ypng== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.1.5 with SMTP id 5mr2274450lai.20.1389300676851; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:51:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.170.193 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:51:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52CF081A.9010608@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> References: <52CF081A.9010608@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:51:16 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c6644547cce04ef8fc5a1 Cc: "multimob@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [multimob] Polling WG on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 20:51:28 -0000 --089e013c6644547cce04ef8fc5a1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Thomas, On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt < schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to garble drafts > after they had successfully passed WG last call. > > This is not garbling the draft. Please refer to the shepherd document: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html In order to answer positively many questions like 2, Working Group Summary, or 4, We need to get WG's opinion. I personally am confused. Regards, Behcet > Am I mistaken, Brian? > > Cheers, > > Thomas > > > On 09.01.2014 21:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like to get consensus >> opinion on one issue regarding this document that came up recently. >> Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list. >> >> ISSUE: >> Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver mobility, we only >> worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224. >> However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 covers PIM at MAG for >> source mobility starting with Section 4.3. >> >> Question: >> >> Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility, then say YES, >> >> if you do not support it then say NO. >> >> We need as many people as possible to express opinion on this issue. The >> deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014. >> >> If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors to remove PIM at >> MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the revised document to >> IESG. >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> multimob mailing list >> multimob@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >> >> > -- > > 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: +49-40-42875-84= 09=B0 > --089e013c6644547cce04ef8fc5a1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Thomas,



=
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Thomas C. Schmid= t <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> wrote:=
Hi,

I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to garble drafts af= ter they had successfully passed WG last call.


This is not garbling the draft.
Please refer to the shepherd document:

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/temp= late/doc-writeup.html

In order to answer positively many questions like 2, Working= Group Summary, or 4,

We need to get WG's opinion.
I personally am confused.

Regards,

Behcet
=A0
Am I mistaken, Brian?

Cheers,

Thomas


On 09.01.2014 21:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hi all,

Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like to get consensus
opinion on one issue regarding this document that came up recently.
Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list.

ISSUE:
Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver mobility, we only
worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224.
However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 covers PIM at MAG for source mobility starting with Section 4.3.

Question:

Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility, then say YES,

if you do not support it then say NO.

We need as many people as possible to express opinion on this issue. The deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014.

If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors to remove PIM at MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the revised document to IESG.=

Regards,

Behcet


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


--

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

--089e013c6644547cce04ef8fc5a1-- From sebastian.woelke@posteo.de Thu Jan 9 13:58:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3E91AE0C0 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 13:58:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9gde1um4B5UK for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 13:58:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx02a.posteo.de (mx02a.posteo.de [89.146.194.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBEE11A1F1A for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 13:58:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62943034902 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:58:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at posteo.de Received: from posteo.de ([10.125.125.134]) by localhost (amavis1.posteo.de [10.125.125.165]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 3UcoiIjBUQXT for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:58:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.posteo.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9573420420EF6 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:58:19 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 22:58:19 +0100 From: Sebastian Woelke To: In-Reply-To: References: <52CF081A.9010608@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Message-ID: <556a93ec289a22d237e5bddbfa0c3ded@posteo.de> X-Sender: sebastian.woelke@posteo.de User-Agent: Posteo Webmail Subject: Re: [multimob] Polling WG on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:58:37 -0000 Hello, I reviewed pmipv6-source-06 for the WG last call, I implemented parts=20 of it and weeks after the last call I think the draft is still in a good=20 shape and ready for the next step. I also think the draft get a consistency problem if we remove this=20 chapter. Kind Regards, Sebastian Am 09.01.2014 21:51 schrieb Behcet Sarikaya: > Hi Thomas, >=20 > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt > wrote: >=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to garble=20 >> drafts after they had successfully passed WG last call. >=20 > This is not garbling the draft. >=20 > Please refer to the shepherd document: >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html [6] >=20 > In order to answer positively many questions like 2, Working Group > Summary, or 4, >=20 > We need to get WG's opinion. >=20 > I personally am confused. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Behcet > =C2=A0 >=20 >> Am I mistaken, Brian? >>=20 >> Cheers, >>=20 >> Thomas >>=20 >> On 09.01.2014 21:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >>=20 >>> Hi all, >>>=20 >>> Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like to get=20 >>> consensus >>> opinion on one issue regarding this document that came up recently. >>> Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list. >>>=20 >>> ISSUE: >>> Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver mobility, we=20 >>> only >>> worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224. >>> However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 covers PIM at MAG for >>> source mobility starting with Section 4.3. >>>=20 >>> Question: >>>=20 >>> Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility, then say=20 >>> YES, >>>=20 >>> if you do not support it then say NO. >>>=20 >>> We need as many people as possible to express opinion on this issue.=20 >>> The >>> deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014. >>>=20 >>> If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors to remove=20 >>> PIM at >>> MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the revised document=20 >>> to IESG. >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>>=20 >>> Behcet >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> multimob mailing list >>> multimob@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob [1] >>=20 >> -- >>=20 >> Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt >> =C2=B0 Hamburg University of Applied Sciences =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Berliner=20 >> Tor 7 =C2=B0 >> =C2=B0 Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group =C2=A0 =C2=A020099 = Hamburg,=20 >> Germany =C2=B0 >> =C2=B0 http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet [2] =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Fon:=20 >> +49-40-42875-8452 [3] =C2=B0 >> =C2=B0 http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt [4] =C2=A0 =C2=A0Fa= x:=20 >> +49-40-42875-8409 [5] =C2=B0 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Links: > ------ > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > [2] http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet > [3] tel:%2B49-40-42875-8452 > [4] http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt > [5] tel:%2B49-40-42875-8409 > [6] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html >=20 > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From brian@innovationslab.net Thu Jan 9 14:09:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5A91AC863 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:09:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O58zDnmMJPs5 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:09:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB73A1AC828 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:09:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417C2880A4; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:09:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from clemson.local (c-76-21-129-88.hsd1.md.comcast.net [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6455130003; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:09:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52CF1E1B.3070207@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:09:31 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" , sarikaya@ieee.org, "multimob@ietf.org" References: <52CF081A.9010608@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> In-Reply-To: <52CF081A.9010608@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="u3XN9NOOi9C49gXNsku989pp8AC7AjfKE" Subject: Re: [multimob] Polling WG on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 22:09:18 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --u3XN9NOOi9C49gXNsku989pp8AC7AjfKE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thomas, You are not mistaken. The WG chairs are responsible for determining if there is consensus in the WG to advance a draft for publication. If an issue was raised about the content of the document, it should be discussed on the mailing list. Regards, Brian On 1/9/14 3:35 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to garble draft= s > after they had successfully passed WG last call. >=20 > Am I mistaken, Brian? >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Thomas >=20 > On 09.01.2014 21:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like to get consensu= s >> opinion on one issue regarding this document that came up recently. >> Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list. >> >> ISSUE: >> Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver mobility, we onl= y >> worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224. >> However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 covers PIM at MAG for >> source mobility starting with Section 4.3. >> >> Question: >> >> Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility, then say YES, >> >> if you do not support it then say NO. >> >> We need as many people as possible to express opinion on this issue. T= he >> deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014. >> >> If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors to remove PIM = at >> MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the revised document to >> IESG. >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> multimob mailing list >> multimob@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >> >=20 --u3XN9NOOi9C49gXNsku989pp8AC7AjfKE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSzx4bAAoJEBOZRqCi7goq6zMIAMLqVwvNtX/PL6toWdCnXGli 0dEiw2lDg7S07jLx6XvOlDd7Xlnamo6Si9htJqTLjIbmh1/9Q7uLsvsoUs6Py2In P7JBN2dUUqrGAcqQtD/0J+vwNQ2b23GIUzU2c7Dli/ro6sZR6CTRKQfagtTucxNH cPXIpN/rPFekHGCRplCQlIFgrhRU4Fb8w8U+uqr1NJ2X3akBP2kWY1K0Pel5poHj FtxkqDuN4pAbOc+Wv2raWKu9EBLBmT5mEM/QXN1jIiZfiks/jPtfQsCXWBB9wQmU WY26WQex1F+hmy9aqO3aRC0oCW5QEj5rOFiwhzEcxxOZzMtBRgORXZK+DBpQwwU= =4aab -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --u3XN9NOOi9C49gXNsku989pp8AC7AjfKE-- From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Thu Jan 9 15:12:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B495C1A1F7D for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:12:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aNnG1qR7rVsF for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:12:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x22d.google.com (mail-lb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3C51ACC7D for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:12:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id y6so947049lbh.32 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:11:54 -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=IN39GA7+Z4OdTBMNI2ztPpUOstyxTwdXbhThF9XFzi8=; b=WqM6IJqgMoMWHEtUxC8oJ7fGlgr1z3NyXEQ+0nsZ8CGFbAJUPpcQJNIUOZE+bsXIn7 GC3+hXx0u5vmwuGv9h8wQAW8HJpZwKb9fEdI2+/hORD/6X8iF4fj4R3h1fuBr23dE+7C 8uvFD6xEOE7Iz+50EJCLpyqWIQ0NlQqI4iWsMEUekofDe/9VOC+Xw8QvmwTEFHVtK3wu Zq22NZcFrl3/UaUyGPNWECE/TNye9HpouNVkKYqoGB4ZRz0HyXdUytxelhs+4HaR0Lu5 iR9pm+LOzC2KPd/RzceWsku1em3Z1Y77MRDVNRSsxZrc0OYUCwnMldtFlus3gardzesP 85VQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.120.135 with SMTP id lc7mr2429307lab.38.1389309114749; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:11:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.170.193 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:11:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <556a93ec289a22d237e5bddbfa0c3ded@posteo.de> References: <52CF081A.9010608@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <556a93ec289a22d237e5bddbfa0c3ded@posteo.de> Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:11:54 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Sebastian Woelke Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012281ac4494d704ef91bc63 Cc: "multimob@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [multimob] Polling WG on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 23:12:08 -0000 --089e012281ac4494d704ef91bc63 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Sebastian, If this protocol is implemented maybe we should go for standard track document. What do you think? Also you did not say which parts you implemented? Regards, Behcet On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Sebastian Woelke wrote: > Hello, > > I reviewed pmipv6-source-06 for the WG last call, I implemented parts of > it and weeks after the last call I think the draft is still in a good sha= pe > and ready for the next step. > I also think the draft get a consistency problem if we remove this chapte= r. > > Kind Regards, > Sebastian > > > > Am 09.01.2014 21:51 schrieb Behcet Sarikaya: > >> Hi Thomas, >> >> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >>> >>> I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to garble draft= s >>> after they had successfully passed WG last call. >>> >> >> This is not garbling the draft. >> >> Please refer to the shepherd document: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html [6] >> >> >> In order to answer positively many questions like 2, Working Group >> Summary, or 4, >> >> We need to get WG's opinion. >> >> I personally am confused. >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> >> Am I mistaken, Brian? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Thomas >>> >>> On 09.01.2014 21:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like to get consensu= s >>>> opinion on one issue regarding this document that came up recently. >>>> Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list. >>>> >>>> ISSUE: >>>> Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver mobility, we onl= y >>>> worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224. >>>> However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 covers PIM at MAG for >>>> source mobility starting with Section 4.3. >>>> >>>> Question: >>>> >>>> Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility, then say YES, >>>> >>>> if you do not support it then say NO. >>>> >>>> We need as many people as possible to express opinion on this issue. T= he >>>> deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014. >>>> >>>> If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors to remove PIM = at >>>> MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the revised document to >>>> IESG. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Behcet >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> multimob mailing list >>>> multimob@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob [1] >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt >>> =B0 Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner T= or >>> 7 =B0 >>> =B0 Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, >>> Germany =B0 >>> =B0 http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet [2] Fon: >>> +49-40-42875-8452 [3] =B0 >>> =B0 http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt [4] Fax: >>> +49-40-42875-8409 [5] =B0 >>> >> >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >> [2] http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet >> [3] tel:%2B49-40-42875-8452 >> [4] http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt >> [5] tel:%2B49-40-42875-8409 >> [6] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > --089e012281ac4494d704ef91bc63 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Sebastian,

If = this protocol is implemented maybe we should go for standard track document= .

What do you think?

Also you did not say which p= arts you implemented?

Regards,

Behcet


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM,= Sebastian Woelke <sebastian.woelke@posteo.de> wrot= e:
Hello,

I reviewed pmipv6-source-06 for the WG last call, I implemented parts of it= and weeks after the last call I think the draft is still in a good shape a= nd ready for the next step.
I also think the draft get a consistency problem if we remove this chapter.=

Kind Regards,
Sebastian



Am 09.01.2014 21:51 schrieb Behcet Sarikaya:
Hi Thomas,

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt
<= schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> wrote:

Hi,

I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to garble drafts af= ter they had successfully passed WG last call.

This is not garbling the draft.

Please refer to the shepherd document:

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html [= 6]


In order to answer positively many questions like 2, Working Group
Summary, or 4,

We need to get WG's opinion.

I personally am confused.

Regards,

Behcet
=A0

Am I mistaken, Brian?

Cheers,

Thomas

On 09.01.2014 21:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

Hi all,

Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like to get consensus
opinion on one issue regarding this document that came up recently.
Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list.

ISSUE:
Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver mobility, we only
worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224.
However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 covers PIM at MAG for source mobility starting with Section 4.3.

Question:

Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility, then say YES,

if you do not support it then say NO.

We need as many people as possible to express opinion on this issue. The deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014.

If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors to remove PIM at MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the revised document to IESG.=

Regards,

Behcet

_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
multimob@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob [1]=

--

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 [2] =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Fon: += 49-40-42875-8452 [3] =B0
=B0 http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt [4] =A0 =A0Fa= x: +49-40-42875-8409 [5] =B0



Links:
------
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
[2] http://www= .haw-hamburg.de/inet
[3] tel:%2B49-40-42875-8452
[4] http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt
[5] tel:%2B49-40-42875-8409
[6] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html

_______________________________________________
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

--089e012281ac4494d704ef91bc63-- From prvs=0808c8da2=schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de Fri Jan 10 02:34:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F411A8033 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:34:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PkeZ7wK-ZFlW for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:34:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de (mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de [141.22.6.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9271AC863 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:34:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([141.22.30.74]) by mail6.is.haw-hamburg.de with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 10 Jan 2014 11:34:34 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B859610679D7; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:34:34 +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 08490-05; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:34:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.178.33] (e178062121.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.62.121]) (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 F10B710679CF; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:34:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52CFCCB6.7030609@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:34:30 +0100 From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sarikaya@ieee.org, Sebastian Woelke References: <52CF081A.9010608@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <556a93ec289a22d237e5bddbfa0c3ded@posteo.de> In-Reply-To: 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" Subject: Re: [multimob] Polling WG on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:35:00 -0000 Hi, On 10.01.2014 00:11, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Also you did not say which parts you implemented? > The implementation "mcproxy" was announced on the list on Dec. 18th, 2013. It covers those parts of the draft that are not deployable with commonly available 'standard' software like MLD-Proxies or PIM daemons: " The mcproxy complies to the IGMP/MLD proxy standard (RFC 4605) and supports the group membership protocols IGMPv3 and MLDv2 as well. In additional it meets the requirements of the multicast source and listener support in proxy mobile IPv6 (draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 and RFC 6224). Key features: - supports IPv4 (IGMPv3) - supports IPv6 (MLDv2) - can be instantiated multiple times - dynamically configurable at runtime - can be configured to peer data between its instances - supports multiple upstreams " Cheers, Thomas > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Sebastian Woelke > > wrote: > > Hello, > > I reviewed pmipv6-source-06 for the WG last call, I implemented > parts of it and weeks after the last call I think the draft is still > in a good shape and ready for the next step. > I also think the draft get a consistency problem if we remove this > chapter. > > Kind Regards, > Sebastian > > > > Am 09.01.2014 21:51 schrieb Behcet Sarikaya: > > Hi Thomas, > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt > > wrote: > > Hi, > > I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to > garble drafts after they had successfully passed WG last call. > > > This is not garbling the draft. > > Please refer to the shepherd document: > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/__template/doc-writeup.html > [6] > > > In order to answer positively many questions like 2, Working Group > Summary, or 4, > > We need to get WG's opinion. > > I personally am confused. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > > Am I mistaken, Brian? > > Cheers, > > Thomas > > On 09.01.2014 21:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > Hi all, > > Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like > to get consensus > opinion on one issue regarding this document that came > up recently. > Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list. > > ISSUE: > Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver > mobility, we only > worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224. > However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-__source-07 covers > PIM at MAG for > source mobility starting with Section 4.3. > > Question: > > Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility, > then say YES, > > if you do not support it then say NO. > > We need as many people as possible to express opinion on > this issue. The > deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014. > > If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors > to remove PIM at > MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the > revised document to IESG. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > _________________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/multimob > [1] > > > -- > > 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 [2] Fon: > +49-40-42875-8452 [3] ° > ° http://www.informatik.haw-__hamburg.de/~schmidt > [4] Fax: > +49-40-42875-8409 [5] ° > > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/multimob > > [2] http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet > [3] tel:%2B49-40-42875-8452 > [4] http://www.informatik.haw-__hamburg.de/~schmidt > > [5] tel:%2B49-40-42875-8409 > [6] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/__template/doc-writeup.html > > > > _________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > -- 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 brian@innovationslab.net Fri Jan 10 05:44:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860181ADEBE for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:44:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fu7UlB0afa9j for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:44:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A1A1ADE72 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:44:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8912E880A9 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:44:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from 102524251.rudm1.ra.johnshopkins.edu (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu [162.129.250.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511E0130003 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:44:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52CFF954.1070604@innovationslab.net> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:44:52 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: multimob@ietf.org References: <52CF081A.9010608@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <556a93ec289a22d237e5bddbfa0c3ded@posteo.de> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0wocTX4UeS6AKIaQBMwAi5HscW40XoGKU" Subject: Re: [multimob] Polling WG on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:44:33 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --0wocTX4UeS6AKIaQBMwAi5HscW40XoGKU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Behcet, On 1/9/14 6:11 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hello Sebastian, >=20 > If this protocol is implemented maybe we should go for standard track > document. >=20 > What do you think? Given the operational knowledge we have with this work, I don't think it would be wise. Experimental is still the most appropriate track at this point. Regards, Brian --0wocTX4UeS6AKIaQBMwAi5HscW40XoGKU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSz/lVAAoJEBOZRqCi7goq4w4H/1Ne+PJ/4JrsaqzBy2AQufWk HveXetrTk8sqPhWpMGfQ6260puTKdkTxGrrgiFkzzRmQRBm+y2L8Q0igsTZqYS/K CflxSKgjglawl6YokDzA7pCObxpUgsUS3ghggEbnxhq/t7MLB0+tNTeb1fNYBhr6 oRPQsuXyFDH1JDYHpZgdy8gRD2zhJAcoIpHySZx/tt1XkP+dXYOPX3UjOzc6dUrY 9pU+8j/LsbUYLVefc+71DlOnVFR4f1tuZsjqW16bGNV9gqr1lSZ10K3/KIobZjbM 62Z3owe9wL+q+RTyJCWrBkJUliL8jjzPjUy41TKeyjMvDD3n/r54JYKdTnYAlPQ= =Secj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0wocTX4UeS6AKIaQBMwAi5HscW40XoGKU-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri Jan 10 12:13:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603FA1AE1E7; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:13:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FWJGPsEhq2Nm; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:13:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD6D1AE1EA; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:13:53 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140110201353.1908.67569.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:13:53 -0800 Cc: multimob mailing list , multimob chair , RFC Editor Subject: [multimob] Document Action: 'PMIPv6 multicast handover optimization by the Subscription Information Acquisition through the LMA (SIAL)' to Experimental RFC (draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-07.txt) X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:13:58 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'PMIPv6 multicast handover optimization by the Subscription Information Acquisition through the LMA (SIAL)' (draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-07.txt) as Experimental RFC This document is the product of the Multicast Mobility Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Ted Lemon. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization/ Technical Summary In this document, some enhancements to the base solution described in RFC 6224 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 Mobility Access Gateway can provide access to multicast content in the local network. These enhancements provide benefits such as reducing multicast traffic replication and supporting different PMIPv6 deployment scenarios. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No Document Quality There are currently no existing implementations of the protocol described in this document. The document has no substantive issues as evidenced by WGLC comments. There was no MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review conducted on this document. Personnel Document Shepherd is Behcet Sarikaya Responsible Area Director is Brian Haberman From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Thu Jan 16 14:01:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF711AD672 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:01:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8qzrZKO3V7Pp for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:01:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x234.google.com (mail-lb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30061ACCEF for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:01:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id n15so2335942lbi.25 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:01:15 -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=5FbybNshCUlqqCEyBK47KD80jhRLUT7ODjgkjmUJwWo=; b=XN9T8V7tDHW2twvEvyLwzfV+RvQY1RFygJTNbnnYwgwWnuNgVkESAYa1LdgMDDWje+ CTUL3uzsEVIkTgY5KnwgiuJx4LRhjrnvr3ws0SHjBnDaZZwv1B3RUogGfUF60H4g7CZE vDVOHRXh4+so/dF0suFut1/4dDoP/TgLLc811mR49X0Js0lV1wcDleO4jJNwkpBmrdFc zXXoia0wBplSRxmbcD3uMAoQJr1bgqh26tl5xydt/KaVFK0NgKuhu/5q+kqF/aCh2Gry a8YeNNI6lea2I/lzE/jfwxLALWZR4tgCzk0ay9WMcUF3a5uqJxDQCuQJx23pzcdkL7y+ fR1A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.219.170 with SMTP id pp10mr5987346lbc.29.1389909675702; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:01:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.170.193 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:01:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52CFF954.1070604@innovationslab.net> References: <52CF081A.9010608@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <556a93ec289a22d237e5bddbfa0c3ded@posteo.de> <52CFF954.1070604@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:01:15 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Brian Haberman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c259927d7e7a04f01d90ba Cc: "multimob@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [multimob] Polling WG on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:01:30 -0000 --001a11c259927d7e7a04f01d90ba Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Brian, I agree. It appears that the implementation is not an independent one. Regards, Behcet On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > Behcet, > > On 1/9/14 6:11 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > Hello Sebastian, > > > > If this protocol is implemented maybe we should go for standard track > > document. > > > > What do you think? > > Given the operational knowledge we have with this work, I don't think it > would be wise. Experimental is still the most appropriate track at this > point. > > Regards, > Brian > > > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > > --001a11c259927d7e7a04f01d90ba Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Brian,

I agree. It appears = that the implementation is not an independent one.

Regards,
Behcet


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationsl= ab.net> wrote:
Behcet,

On 1/9/14 6:11 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hello Sebastian,
>
> If this protocol is implemented maybe we should go for standard track<= br> > document.
>
> What do you think?

Given the operational knowledge we have with this work, I don't t= hink it
would be wise. =A0Experimental is still the most appropriate track at this<= br> point.

Regards,
Brian


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


--001a11c259927d7e7a04f01d90ba-- From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Thu Jan 16 14:17:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ADE31AD66B for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:17:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Aweo1deLLZUv for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x235.google.com (mail-lb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2871AC4AB for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id z5so2372490lbh.26 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:17:21 -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=x4Qn0q67Z1U7qlN2xqKW/N+lD9EHVfeDvTWqicH5Mss=; b=sXzwP5lCMbbojwbLFmV5wlIB24lH0Vcq0ZC1VGF4YkWly9zkLxC4H48vIb37UPvb7F CcDINDtiPiTc+/rSi7nmm16VL6IxgeBZRjaLGCcr/Rp2n8FqkX0P5HpHZz5TUaBO3lKp 82aeWyplmdQ1/8F7bxFhCdX8hiBjXDazXsz6rcm7KkI5ZgYCX3UkX3psOreGutX8R3Yd wsJiOUiKqiHZ9Vnl4B2APjTEib2IjE3UmF3NJAD3re223SvFCuyFF4pdY1VorrhUT0qo F07WppX0c2fDMJtmXtw3cuTxaUcm8SokRdl4C9GEBso0n58XJhwDaQgGLJIa7wsf19ZW uDQA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.219.170 with SMTP id pp10mr6012396lbc.29.1389910641517; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:17:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.170.193 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:17:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52CF1E1B.3070207@innovationslab.net> References: <52CF081A.9010608@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <52CF1E1B.3070207@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:17:21 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Brian Haberman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c259920ea80504f01dca27 Cc: "multimob@ietf.org" , "Thomas C. Schmidt" Subject: Re: [multimob] Polling WG on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:17:36 -0000 --001a11c259920ea80504f01dca27 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Brian, On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Brian Haberman wrote: > Thomas, > You are not mistaken. The WG chairs are responsible for > determining if there is consensus in the WG to advance a draft for > publication. If an issue was raised about the content of the document, > it should be discussed on the mailing list. > > Yes, of course. If you read the draft, which I certainly did, it is clear that the base solution, i.e. Proxy at MAG is OK for source mobility. There is some performance issue which happens when MN as the mobile source, but associated with a different LMA as mentioned on page 7. The performance issue can be solved, as mentioned in Section 5 using an optimized approach to multicast source mobility based on extended peering functions among Proxies. (I put a capital on proxies). So my question to the everyone is why do we need PIM at MAG discussion in this draft? If we don't have PIM at MAG discussion included, the document will not be garbled for sure, instead it will be consistent and much better for Multimob. Garbling would happen if for example Section 4.3.5 is taken and moved to Section 5 after Section 5.1. Regards, Behcet Regards, > Brian > > > On 1/9/14 3:35 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to garble drafts > > after they had successfully passed WG last call. > > > > Am I mistaken, Brian? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Thomas > > > > On 09.01.2014 21:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like to get consensus > >> opinion on one issue regarding this document that came up recently. > >> Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list. > >> > >> ISSUE: > >> Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver mobility, we only > >> worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224. > >> However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 covers PIM at MAG for > >> source mobility starting with Section 4.3. > >> > >> Question: > >> > >> Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility, then say YES, > >> > >> if you do not support it then say NO. > >> > >> We need as many people as possible to express opinion on this issue. The > >> deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014. > >> > >> If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors to remove PIM at > >> MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the revised document to > >> IESG. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Behcet > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> multimob mailing list > >> multimob@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > >> > > > > --001a11c259920ea80504f01dca27 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Brian,




On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
Thomas,
=A0 =A0 =A0You are not mistaken. =A0The WG chairs are responsible for
determining if there is consensus in the WG to advance a draft for
publication. =A0If an issue was raised about the content of the document, it should be discussed on the mailing list.


Yes, of course.

If y= ou read the draft, which I certainly did, it is clear that the base solutio= n, i.e. Proxy at MAG is OK for source mobility.

There is= some performance issue which happens when MN as the mobile source, but associated with a different LMA as mentioned on page 7. The performance = issue can be solved, as mentioned in Section 5 using=A0 an optimized approa= ch to multicast source mobility based on extended peering functions among Proxies.

(I = put a capital on proxies).

So my question to the everyone= is why do we need PIM at MAG discussion in this draft?

If we don't have PIM at MAG discussion included, the document will not = be garbled for sure, instead it will be consistent and much better for Mult= imob.

Garbling would happen if for example Section 4.3.5 = is taken and moved to Section 5 after Section 5.1.

Regards,

Behcet

Regards,
Brian


On 1/9/14 3:35 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to garble draf= ts
> after they had successfully passed WG last call.
>
> Am I mistaken, Brian?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas
>
> On 09.01.2014 21:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like to get cons= ensus
>> opinion on one issue regarding this document that came up recently= .
>> Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list.
>>
>> ISSUE:
>> Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver mobility, we= only
>> worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224.
>> However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 covers PIM at MAG for=
>> source mobility starting with Section 4.3.
>>
>> Question:
>>
>> Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility, then say Y= ES,
>>
>> if you do not support it then say NO.
>>
>> We need as many people as possible to express opinion on this issu= e. The
>> deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014.
>>
>> If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors to remove = PIM at
>> MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the revised document= to
>> IESG.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> multimob mailing list
>> multimob@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>>
>


--001a11c259920ea80504f01dca27-- From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Fri Jan 17 10:15:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5FD91AD67C for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:15:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6etZ3Z90fjvz for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:15:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C06B1A1F4A for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:15:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id u14so3291197lbd.1 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:15:12 -0800 (PST) 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=h58sez0VDVG6N7lEPjJcL/vFyRdiBe7qQjtQV5lzuy8=; b=o0nwzEoJeqpLBq3dT0W74Iv+VxwOH36IaTOV6NXfLiCuLlVcyTQPthHvBcjbUd/QSY R1GaA8Sz0ZRqZ0rSAlV8zWLUin/mmJtSNeUdAftd7rumI8sYjWwX0m1c51BM9hd3uz3G ku45FFzACBnqu/PQPQ/YdIj55NqLuYsIQvDND+vJCTW7MAX0TNHC4YNwAQUwhAD9b1rS WySMf3AMj/5sUQnGYmPpya2jymHFVnrMAonyLous/vpb9vncqIt/pI2RoZ4lyKKO+658 TQzctsttLLK3Y2HZoAY3zkUdv2jkL/sfDfK5GnKrS914wiIWdquKykjVAH/KrbNwVsje K73A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.135.165 with SMTP id pt5mr1681979lbb.33.1389982512267; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:15:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.170.193 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:15:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:15:12 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: "multimob@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01227c0ce3468704f02e8536 Subject: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-02 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 17 Jan 2014 18:15:28 -0000 --089e01227c0ce3468704f02e8536 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Folks, This message starts a four week (as usual in Multimob) Multimob Working Group last call on advancing: Title : Multicast Listener Extensions for MIPv6 and PMIPv6 Fast Handovers Author(s) : Thomas C. Schmidt Matthias Waehlisch Rajeev Koodli Godred Fairhurst Dapeng Liu Filename : draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-02.txt Pages : 27 Date : 2013-12-13 as Experimental. Substantive comments and statements of support for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors. This last call will end on February 14, 2014. Regards, Behcet --089e01227c0ce3468704f02e8536 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Folks,

This message starts a four week (as usual in Multimob) 
Multimob Working Group last call
on advancing:


	Title           : Multicast Listener Extensions for MIPv6 and PMIPv6 Fast Handovers
	Author(s)       : Thomas C. Schmidt
                          Matthias Waehlisch
                          Rajeev Koodli
                          Godred Fairhurst
                          Dapeng Liu
	Filename        : draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-02.txt
	Pages           : 27
	Date            : 2013-12-13

as Experimental.  Substantive comments and statements of support
for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list.
Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.  This last call will
end on February 14, 2014.

Regards,
Behcet
--089e01227c0ce3468704f02e8536-- From stig@venaas.com Mon Jan 27 11:30:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34781A0284 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:30:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vXbuwv9Coubz for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:30:26 -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 3E6101A001E for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:30:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.33.12.93] (128-107-239-235.cisco.com [128.107.239.235]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AD71802F; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:30:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52E6B3C4.2050104@venaas.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:30:12 -0800 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sarikaya@ieee.org, Brian Haberman References: <52CF081A.9010608@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <52CF1E1B.3070207@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "multimob@ietf.org" , "Thomas C. Schmidt" Subject: Re: [multimob] Polling WG on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:30:29 -0000 I have now requested publication of the document. Status and shepherd's writeup etc. can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source/ Sorry this took a while, I was very busy with other matters last couple of weeks. Stig