Subject: [Netext] FW: I-D Action:draft-jeyatharan-netlmm-multi-interface-ps-03.txt
From: Mohana.Jeyatharan at sg.panasonic.com (Mohana Jeyatharan)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:38:38 +0800

Hi All,

This is the revised problem statement draft of multiple interfaces
support in PMIP. 
All comments are appreciated.

BR,
Mohana
-----Original Message-----
From: i-d-announce-bounces at ietf.org
[mailto:i-d-announce-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 5:00 PM
To: i-d-announce at ietf.org
Subject: I-D Action:draft-jeyatharan-netlmm-multi-interface-ps-03.txt 

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title           : Multiple Interfaced Mobile Nodes in NetLMM
	Author(s)       : M. Jeyatharan, et al.
	Filename        :
draft-jeyatharan-netlmm-multi-interface-ps-03.txt
	Pages           : 39
	Date            : 2008-10-30

The specific mechanism described in the current PMIPv6 draft to support
multihoming is such that a unique prefix is given to each interface of a
Mobile Node (MN) that is attached to the PMIPv6 domain.  However,
multihoming can also be provided using same unique prefix for all
interfaces of MN similar to the MONAMI6 (Mobile Nodes and Multiple
Interfaces in IPv6) concept.  This memo explores and highlights lack of
advanced multihoming support and other hand-off related issues where
appropriate in three different mobility management protocol models for
multiple interfaced mobile nodes.
Firstly, when single prefix is allocated for all interfaces of MN in the
PMIPv6 domain.  Secondly, when unique prefix is allocated for each
interface as in PMIPv6 standard protocol model.  Thirdly, when a
multiple interfaced node uses different mobility management mechanisms
for each of its interfaces.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jeyatharan-netlmm-multi-interf
ace-ps-03.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: draft-jeyatharan-netlmm-multi-interface-ps-03.URL
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 110 bytes
Desc: draft-jeyatharan-netlmm-multi-interface-ps-03.URL
Url : http://www.mobileip.jp/pipermail/netext/attachments/20081030/a28acbb9/attachment.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT21773604.txt
Url: http://www.mobileip.jp/pipermail/netext/attachments/20081030/a28acbb9/attachment.txt 

From: rkoodli at starentnetworks.com (Koodli, Rajeev)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:01:59 -0400
Subject: [Netext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-koodli-flow-handover-00
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hello,

Here is a draft on flow handovers for PMIP6.
Comments appreciated.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-koodli-flow-handover-00.txt

Regards,

-Rajeev

> -----Original Message-----
> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:idsubmission at ietf.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:38 PM
> To: Koodli, Rajeev
> Cc: Chowdhury, Kuntal
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-koodli-flow-handover-00
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-koodli-flow-handover-00.txt has been
> successfuly submitted by Rajeev Koodli and posted to the IETF
repository.
> 
> Filename:	 draft-koodli-flow-handover
> Revision:	 00
> Title:		 Flow Handover for Proxy Mobile IPv6
> Creation_date:	 2008-10-24
> WG ID:		 Independent Submission
> Number_of_pages: 11
> 
> Abstract:
> With interface multihoming, Mobile Nodes are capable of simultaneous
> attachment to multiple radio access networks.  This enables a network
> node such as the Local Mobility Anchor to distribute the application
> traffic to interfaces that can best serve them.  This document
> specifies a network-controlled protocol to handover application flows
> from one interface to another.  Such control could provide better
> experience for end users and better traffic management for network
> operators.
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF Secretariat.
> 

This email and any attachments may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information of Starent Networks, Corp. and is intended only for the individual or entity named in the message.  The information transmitted may not be used to create or change any contractual obligations of Starent Networks, Corp.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail and its attachments by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately -- by replying to this message or by sending an email to postmaster at starentnetworks.com -- and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments without reading or disclosing their contents. Thank you.

From: amuhanna at nortel.com (Ahmad Muhanna)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:06:15 -0500
Subject: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]><[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Vijay,

That is good to hear!

Probably would be good for folks to post on the ml that they have read
the draft and have no comment in response to the LC. I am to blame too!
On the other hand, that also seems to underline the point that I am
trying to make, probably those folks who are interested are already
stretched and another wg doing the same thing wont help.:)

Regards,
Ahmad

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:vijay at wichorus.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:59 AM
> To: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10); Jari Arkko; Basavaraj Patil
> Cc: netext at mail.mobileip.jp; W. Mark Townsley
> Subject: RE: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
> 
> Ahmad,
> 
> OTOH, draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-05.txt has been 
> reviewed so much for the past 2 years, that perhaps there is 
> nothing more to day. It is in a good shape and good to go. :)
> 
> Vijay 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp 
> > [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp] On Behalf Of Ahmad Muhanna
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:36 AM
> > To: Jari Arkko; Basavaraj Patil
> > Cc: netext at mail.mobileip.jp; W. Mark Townsley
> > Subject: Re: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
> > 
> > Hello Jari,
> > 
> > With the netlmm wg LC expires for the
> > "draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support" with a very little comments 
> > from interested folks on the Netlmm ml, I would like to 
> comment on the 
> > need of NetExt.
> > 
> > Other than the interest of some people to be chairs for a 
> new wg:), I 
> > am not convinced that there is a need for such BoF or wg for the 
> > following
> > reasons:
> > 
> > 1. The people who would participate on the work items for 
> this wg is 
> > exactly the same who already active on Netlmm wg.
> > 2. Until now, it is NOT quite clear to me how the 
> activities will be 
> > split between Netlmm and NetExt. I personally foresee and 
> expect a lot 
> > of overlapping and conflicts between the two wgs which 
> > eventually/possibly will negatively impact the outcome of 
> both working 
> > groups.
> > 3. If the claim that Netlmm wg is slow and the chairs 
> limited the work 
> > load for the next 12 months is the main reason for such wg, 
> do not all 
> > of us feel sympathy with the netlmm chairs? A major wg document LC 
> > passes with a very little comments especially from those 
> who champion 
> > the need for this NetExt BoF/wg.
> > 4. Having said all of the above, I am convinced that many of the 
> > topics if not all that have been discussed on NetExt is quite 
> > important and needs to be addressed at some time; however, 
> people need 
> > to show commitment to the PMIPv6 related existing work items and 
> > properly drive them to conclusion in order to allow or at least 
> > encourage the netlmm chairs to accept more work for the 
> next 12 months 
> > and beyond.
> > 
> > Finally, with PMIPv6 IPv4 support as an example, I do not see any 
> > encouraging signs that a new wg will speed the process nor increase 
> > the output. On the contrary, I believe more ACTIVE 
> participation from 
> > the interested folks on the netlmm mailing list and let me say a 
> > little more focus from the chairs of the Netlmm wg is probably the 
> > only mechanism that will enable us to make a difference.
> > 
> > Sorry for the late comments but hope you do not mind My 2 cents!
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Ahmad
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp 
> > > [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 12:41 AM
> > > To: Basavaraj Patil
> > > Cc: netext at mail.mobileip.jp; W. Mark Townsley
> > > Subject: Re: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > I don't have a problem per se to postpone the BoF to March. 
> > > But as you
> > > > know very well it is better to take advantage of the
> > > current interest
> > > > by some motivated folks to get the work started. As Rajeev
> > > also said,
> > > > the logistics of a WG being formed will anyway take until
> > > Spring 09. 
> > > > With the BoF now being postponed to March, a WG would
> > > potentially come
> > > > into existence only in the summer of 09. We can try and
> > > keep the work
> > > > items (I-Ds) updated and make some forward progress. But
> > without an
> > > > avenue in the IETF for these, the folks working on these
> > > are less motivated.
> > > >   
> > > Let me be clear: the NETEXT work is important, and we 
> really need to 
> > > do it. I'm only asking for sequencing of work, not making 
> a comment 
> > > that the work is not important.
> > > 
> > > Jari
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NetExt mailing list
> > > NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> > > http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > NetExt mailing list
> > NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> > http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
> > 
> 

From: vijay at wichorus.com (Vijay Devarapalli)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:58:33 -0400
Subject: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]><[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Ahmad,

OTOH, draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-05.txt has been reviewed so
much for the past 2 years, that perhaps there is nothing more to day. It
is in a good shape and good to go. :)

Vijay 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp 
> [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp] On Behalf Of Ahmad Muhanna
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:36 AM
> To: Jari Arkko; Basavaraj Patil
> Cc: netext at mail.mobileip.jp; W. Mark Townsley
> Subject: Re: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
> 
> Hello Jari,
> 
> With the netlmm wg LC expires for the
> "draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support" with a very little 
> comments from
> interested folks on the Netlmm ml, I would like to comment on the need
> of NetExt.
> 
> Other than the interest of some people to be chairs for a new 
> wg:), I am
> not convinced that there is a need for such BoF or wg for the 
> following
> reasons:
> 
> 1. The people who would participate on the work items for this wg is
> exactly the same who already active on Netlmm wg.
> 2. Until now, it is NOT quite clear to me how the activities will be
> split between Netlmm and NetExt. I personally foresee and expect a lot
> of overlapping and conflicts between the two wgs which
> eventually/possibly will negatively impact the outcome of both working
> groups.
> 3. If the claim that Netlmm wg is slow and the chairs limited the work
> load for the next 12 months is the main reason for such wg, do not all
> of us feel sympathy with the netlmm chairs? A major wg document LC
> passes with a very little comments especially from those who champion
> the need for this NetExt BoF/wg.
> 4. Having said all of the above, I am convinced that many of 
> the topics
> if not all that have been discussed on NetExt is quite important and
> needs to be addressed at some time; however, people need to show
> commitment to the PMIPv6 related existing work items and 
> properly drive
> them to conclusion in order to allow or at least encourage the netlmm
> chairs to accept more work for the next 12 months and beyond.
> 
> Finally, with PMIPv6 IPv4 support as an example, I do not see any
> encouraging signs that a new wg will speed the process nor 
> increase the
> output. On the contrary, I believe more ACTIVE participation from the
> interested folks on the netlmm mailing list and let me say a 
> little more
> focus from the chairs of the Netlmm wg is probably the only mechanism
> that will enable us to make a difference.
> 
> Sorry for the late comments but hope you do not mind My 2 cents!
> 
> Regards,
> Ahmad
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp 
> > [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 12:41 AM
> > To: Basavaraj Patil
> > Cc: netext at mail.mobileip.jp; W. Mark Townsley
> > Subject: Re: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
> > 
> > 
> > > I don't have a problem per se to postpone the BoF to March. 
> > But as you 
> > > know very well it is better to take advantage of the 
> > current interest 
> > > by some motivated folks to get the work started. As Rajeev 
> > also said, 
> > > the logistics of a WG being formed will anyway take until 
> > Spring 09. 
> > > With the BoF now being postponed to March, a WG would 
> > potentially come 
> > > into existence only in the summer of 09. We can try and 
> > keep the work 
> > > items (I-Ds) updated and make some forward progress. But 
> without an 
> > > avenue in the IETF for these, the folks working on these 
> > are less motivated.
> > >   
> > Let me be clear: the NETEXT work is important, and we really 
> > need to do it. I'm only asking for sequencing of work, not 
> > making a comment that the work is not important.
> > 
> > Jari
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > NetExt mailing list
> > NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> > http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NetExt mailing list
> NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
> 

From: amuhanna at nortel.com (Ahmad Muhanna)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:35:35 -0500
Subject: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hello Jari,

With the netlmm wg LC expires for the
"draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support" with a very little comments from
interested folks on the Netlmm ml, I would like to comment on the need
of NetExt.

Other than the interest of some people to be chairs for a new wg:), I am
not convinced that there is a need for such BoF or wg for the following
reasons:

1. The people who would participate on the work items for this wg is
exactly the same who already active on Netlmm wg.
2. Until now, it is NOT quite clear to me how the activities will be
split between Netlmm and NetExt. I personally foresee and expect a lot
of overlapping and conflicts between the two wgs which
eventually/possibly will negatively impact the outcome of both working
groups.
3. If the claim that Netlmm wg is slow and the chairs limited the work
load for the next 12 months is the main reason for such wg, do not all
of us feel sympathy with the netlmm chairs? A major wg document LC
passes with a very little comments especially from those who champion
the need for this NetExt BoF/wg.
4. Having said all of the above, I am convinced that many of the topics
if not all that have been discussed on NetExt is quite important and
needs to be addressed at some time; however, people need to show
commitment to the PMIPv6 related existing work items and properly drive
them to conclusion in order to allow or at least encourage the netlmm
chairs to accept more work for the next 12 months and beyond.

Finally, with PMIPv6 IPv4 support as an example, I do not see any
encouraging signs that a new wg will speed the process nor increase the
output. On the contrary, I believe more ACTIVE participation from the
interested folks on the netlmm mailing list and let me say a little more
focus from the chairs of the Netlmm wg is probably the only mechanism
that will enable us to make a difference.

Sorry for the late comments but hope you do not mind My 2 cents!

Regards,
Ahmad

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp 
> [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 12:41 AM
> To: Basavaraj Patil
> Cc: netext at mail.mobileip.jp; W. Mark Townsley
> Subject: Re: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
> 
> 
> > I don't have a problem per se to postpone the BoF to March. 
> But as you 
> > know very well it is better to take advantage of the 
> current interest 
> > by some motivated folks to get the work started. As Rajeev 
> also said, 
> > the logistics of a WG being formed will anyway take until 
> Spring 09. 
> > With the BoF now being postponed to March, a WG would 
> potentially come 
> > into existence only in the summer of 09. We can try and 
> keep the work 
> > items (I-Ds) updated and make some forward progress. But without an 
> > avenue in the IETF for these, the folks working on these 
> are less motivated.
> >   
> Let me be clear: the NETEXT work is important, and we really 
> need to do it. I'm only asking for sequencing of work, not 
> making a comment that the work is not important.
> 
> Jari
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NetExt mailing list
> NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
> 

From: Mohana.Jeyatharan at sg.panasonic.com (Mohana Jeyatharan)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:56:59 +0800
Subject: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Dear Jari,

Thank you for recognizing that the work on Net Extensions is important.
I share the view of many others that this BOF should start as early as
possible. Hope you re-consider the request.

Thanks in advance.

BR,
Mohana 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp 
> [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1:41 PM
> To: Basavaraj Patil
> Cc: netext at mail.mobileip.jp; W. Mark Townsley
> Subject: Re: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
> 
> 
> > I don't have a problem per se to postpone the BoF to March. 
> But as you 
> > know very well it is better to take advantage of the 
> current interest 
> > by some motivated folks to get the work started. As Rajeev 
> also said, 
> > the logistics of a WG being formed will anyway take until 
> Spring 09. 
> > With the BoF now being postponed to March, a WG would 
> potentially come 
> > into existence only in the summer of 09. We can try and 
> keep the work 
> > items (I-Ds) updated and make some forward progress. But without an 
> > avenue in the IETF for these, the folks working on these 
> are less motivated.
> >   
> Let me be clear: the NETEXT work is important, and we really 
> need to do it. I'm only asking for sequencing of work, not 
> making a comment that the work is not important.
> 
> Jari
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NetExt mailing list
> NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
> 

From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:41:03 -0700
Subject: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

> I don't have a problem per se to postpone the BoF to March. But as you know
> very well it is better to take advantage of the current interest by some
> motivated folks to get the work started. As Rajeev also said, the logistics
> of a WG being formed will anyway take until Spring 09. With the BoF now
> being postponed to March, a WG would potentially come into existence only in
> the summer of 09. We can try and keep the work items (I-Ds) updated and make
> some forward progress. But without an avenue in the IETF for these, the
> folks working on these are less motivated.
>   
Let me be clear: the NETEXT work is important, and we really need to do 
it. I'm only asking for sequencing of work, not making a comment that 
the work is not important.

Jari

From: vijay at wichorus.com (Vijay Devarapalli)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 22:35:36 -0400
Subject: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Jari,

IMO, we are making good progress with most of the NETLMM and MEXT WG
items. I don't think we could ask for more from people in terms of
reviews and discussions on the mailing list.

IMO, some of the items that NETEXT is going to be working on are
actually as important as some of the items that are on NETLMM charter
currently. A couple of them like the MN behavior to handle inter access
technology handovers and PMIPv6 multi-homing clarifications should be
done soon, in order to be useful for PMIPv6 implementations and
deployments. A BOF in March 2009, with a WG in July 2009 is a bit late,
IMO. 

We had some very good discussion in the NETEXT bar BOF in Dublin. People
are very interested and motivated to work on the items on the NETLMM
charter currently. We should make use of the, IMHO. I don't believe this
would distract folks in any way from contributing to the work items in
the NETLMM and MEXT charters. We can pay a little bit more attention to
picking editors who are not overloaded for the documents on the NETEXT
charter. 

Vijay

netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp wrote:
> All,
> 
> I have looked at this BOF request, talked with a number of
> people about
> it, and we also reviewed it in the IESG and IAB call last week.
> 
> I believe the BOF is technically ready to move forward, and it has
> satisfied the basic BOF approval criteria.
> 
> My only concern has been whether we (authors, contributors, technical
> experts, ADs, etc) have the bandwidth to deal with this at
> the same time
> as we are going through some important and time-critical work in the
> NETLMM and MEXT working groups. Those groups were recently rechartered
> and as I recall none of the new work items have progressed even to
> submission to AD yet. 
> 
> As a result, I have taken a management decision to postpone
> your BOF for
> March. There will not be a BOF in Minneapolis, but in the
> meantime I do
> ask you help move the NETLMM and MEXT work items to
> completion, consider
> updating the NETEXT related drafts, and otherwise prepare so that
> everything is ready for your BOF in March. I will send
> separately some
> comments that may help in the latter effort.
> 
> Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NetExt mailing list
> NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext

From: basavaraj.patil at nokia.com (Basavaraj Patil)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:25:04 -0500
Subject: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Jari,

I understand your concerns about the fact that the people in the IETF who
work on these topics are essentiall the same as the people conributing in
Netlmm, Mext and, Mipshop.
However, because of the *very* limited scope of the rechartered Netlmm WG,
there has been interest by many to work on the topics that we have scoped
for Netext. 
I don't have a problem per se to postpone the BoF to March. But as you know
very well it is better to take advantage of the current interest by some
motivated folks to get the work started. As Rajeev also said, the logistics
of a WG being formed will anyway take until Spring 09. With the BoF now
being postponed to March, a WG would potentially come into existence only in
the summer of 09. We can try and keep the work items (I-Ds) updated and make
some forward progress. But without an avenue in the IETF for these, the
folks working on these are less motivated.

Rgds,
-Basavaraj 

On 10/6/08 1:58 AM, "ext Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I have looked at this BOF request, talked with a number of people about
> it, and we also reviewed it in the IESG and IAB call last week.
> 
> I believe the BOF is technically ready to move forward, and it has
> satisfied the basic BOF approval criteria.
> 
> My only concern has been whether we (authors, contributors, technical
> experts, ADs, etc) have the bandwidth to deal with this at the same time
> as we are going through some important and time-critical work in the
> NETLMM and MEXT working groups. Those groups were recently rechartered
> and as I recall none of the new work items have progressed even to
> submission to AD yet.
> 
> As a result, I have taken a management decision to postpone your BOF for
> March. There will not be a BOF in Minneapolis, but in the meantime I do
> ask you help move the NETLMM and MEXT work items to completion, consider
> updating the NETEXT related drafts, and otherwise prepare so that
> everything is ready for your BOF in March. I will send separately some
> comments that may help in the latter effort.
> 
> Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NetExt mailing list
> NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext

From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:20:26 +0300
Subject: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hmm. I put those documents to the wiki because I knew about them. If 
there are others, someone else has to speak up. Are there?

Jari

MELIA TELEMACO wrote:
> I mean anything else beyond the list of docs on the wiki?
>
> telemaco 
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp] De la part de MELIA TELEMACO
> Envoy? : lundi 6 octobre 2008 09:55
> ? : Jari Arkko; Koodli, Rajeev; Basavaraj Patil; netext at mail.mobileip.jp
> Cc : W. Mark Townsley
> Objet : Re: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
>
> Hi Jari,
>
> Could you please summarize the NETEXT related documents available so far?
>
> cheers
> telemaco 
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp] De la part de Jari Arkko Envoy? : lundi 6 octobre 2008 08:59 ? : Koodli, Rajeev; Basavaraj Patil; netext at mail.mobileip.jp Cc : W. Mark Townsley Objet : [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
>
> All,
>
> I have looked at this BOF request, talked with a number of people about it, and we also reviewed it in the IESG and IAB call last week.
>
> I believe the BOF is technically ready to move forward, and it has satisfied the basic BOF approval criteria.
>
> My only concern has been whether we (authors, contributors, technical experts, ADs, etc) have the bandwidth to deal with this at the same time as we are going through some important and time-critical work in the NETLMM and MEXT working groups. Those groups were recently rechartered and as I recall none of the new work items have progressed even to submission to AD yet.
>
> As a result, I have taken a management decision to postpone your BOF for March. There will not be a BOF in Minneapolis, but in the meantime I do ask you help move the NETLMM and MEXT work items to completion, consider updating the NETEXT related drafts, and otherwise prepare so that everything is ready for your BOF in March. I will send separately some comments that may help in the latter effort.
>
> Jari
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetExt mailing list
> NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetExt mailing list
> NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
>
>
>   

From: Telemaco.Melia at alcatel-lucent.com (MELIA TELEMACO)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:41:06 +0200
Subject: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

I mean anything else beyond the list of docs on the wiki?

telemaco 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp] De la part de MELIA TELEMACO
Envoy? : lundi 6 octobre 2008 09:55
? : Jari Arkko; Koodli, Rajeev; Basavaraj Patil; netext at mail.mobileip.jp
Cc : W. Mark Townsley
Objet : Re: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation

Hi Jari,

Could you please summarize the NETEXT related documents available so far?

cheers
telemaco 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp] De la part de Jari Arkko Envoy? : lundi 6 octobre 2008 08:59 ? : Koodli, Rajeev; Basavaraj Patil; netext at mail.mobileip.jp Cc : W. Mark Townsley Objet : [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation

All,

I have looked at this BOF request, talked with a number of people about it, and we also reviewed it in the IESG and IAB call last week.

I believe the BOF is technically ready to move forward, and it has satisfied the basic BOF approval criteria.

My only concern has been whether we (authors, contributors, technical experts, ADs, etc) have the bandwidth to deal with this at the same time as we are going through some important and time-critical work in the NETLMM and MEXT working groups. Those groups were recently rechartered and as I recall none of the new work items have progressed even to submission to AD yet.

As a result, I have taken a management decision to postpone your BOF for March. There will not be a BOF in Minneapolis, but in the meantime I do ask you help move the NETLMM and MEXT work items to completion, consider updating the NETEXT related drafts, and otherwise prepare so that everything is ready for your BOF in March. I will send separately some comments that may help in the latter effort.

Jari

_______________________________________________
NetExt mailing list
NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext

_______________________________________________
NetExt mailing list
NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext

From: Telemaco.Melia at alcatel-lucent.com (MELIA TELEMACO)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:54:58 +0200
Subject: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Jari,

Could you please summarize the NETEXT related documents available so far?

cheers
telemaco 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp] De la part de Jari Arkko
Envoy? : lundi 6 octobre 2008 08:59
? : Koodli, Rajeev; Basavaraj Patil; netext at mail.mobileip.jp
Cc : W. Mark Townsley
Objet : [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation

All,

I have looked at this BOF request, talked with a number of people about it, and we also reviewed it in the IESG and IAB call last week.

I believe the BOF is technically ready to move forward, and it has satisfied the basic BOF approval criteria.

My only concern has been whether we (authors, contributors, technical experts, ADs, etc) have the bandwidth to deal with this at the same time as we are going through some important and time-critical work in the NETLMM and MEXT working groups. Those groups were recently rechartered and as I recall none of the new work items have progressed even to submission to AD yet.

As a result, I have taken a management decision to postpone your BOF for March. There will not be a BOF in Minneapolis, but in the meantime I do ask you help move the NETLMM and MEXT work items to completion, consider updating the NETEXT related drafts, and otherwise prepare so that everything is ready for your BOF in March. I will send separately some comments that may help in the latter effort.

Jari

_______________________________________________
NetExt mailing list
NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext

From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:58:53 +0300
Subject: [Netext] NETEXT BOF situation
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

All,

I have looked at this BOF request, talked with a number of people about 
it, and we also reviewed it in the IESG and IAB call last week.

I believe the BOF is technically ready to move forward, and it has 
satisfied the basic BOF approval criteria.

My only concern has been whether we (authors, contributors, technical 
experts, ADs, etc) have the bandwidth to deal with this at the same time 
as we are going through some important and time-critical work in the 
NETLMM and MEXT working groups. Those groups were recently rechartered 
and as I recall none of the new work items have progressed even to 
submission to AD yet.

As a result, I have taken a management decision to postpone your BOF for 
March. There will not be a BOF in Minneapolis, but in the meantime I do 
ask you help move the NETLMM and MEXT work items to completion, consider 
updating the NETEXT related drafts, and otherwise prepare so that 
everything is ready for your BOF in March. I will send separately some 
comments that may help in the latter effort.

Jari