Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Thierry Ernst <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> What are protocols you think no one uses ?
>
> MIPv6 and NEMOv6 needs maintenance, and probably more than than maintenance.
>

Thierry, I meant PMIPv6 which was designed for operator networks.

For MIPv6/NEMOv6, I think in Europe, some research based use is
happening, to my knowledge at a very small scale.
mip6 WG has been closed long time ago.
I wish it were still open, that would be like in good old days.

So conference papers and ISE is still my recipe.

Regards,

Behcet
> Regards,
> Thierry Ernst.
>
>
>> Le 8 janv. 2016 à 20:48, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Jouni.nosmap <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Well one can always pursue ISE/AD sponsored track if one so feels like.
>>>
>>> Just saying there are options..  if one desires to go through the WG process DMM has provisions for Mobile IPv6 protocol family maintenance work.
>>>
>>
>> I started this thread by stating that:
>>
>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no one uses?
>> For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find their places in
>> the conferences or journals.
>>
>> No one objected to the first point.
>>
>> So what is the justification for maintenance? As I said before,
>> charter items can be changed or they do not have to be used.
>>
>> Behcet
>>> Jouni
>>>
>>> Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos..
>>>
>>>> Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> kirjoitti 8.1.2016 kello 9.15:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented extensions of
>>>>> the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue within IETF.
>>>>> Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not ISE? For both MIPv6 and MIPv4.
>>>> Of course you may not be able modify existing RFCs but just write it
>>>> as a new draft and do not bother dmm where future protocol work is
>>>> supposed to be done.
>>>>
>>>> Behcet
>>>>
>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Alex, all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it’s fine to work on MIP6
>>>>>> improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I totally agree.
>>>>>> And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and the related
>>>>>> suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard track. It has
>>>>>> been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly right to
>>>>>> do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the work, if
>>>>>> not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Thierry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 à 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu
>>>>>>> <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Behcet,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic
>>>>>>>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6
>>>>>>>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their
>>>>>>>> prime time as “hot research topics". Looking at the existing charter
>>>>>>>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can
>>>>>>>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jouni I can agree with you in general.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations very
>>>>>>> important in some places including where I work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly protocol and
>>>>>>> implementation bugs which need correction.  Actually some of the corrections
>>>>>>> have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations thrive
>>>>>>> where WG cares little.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <provocative> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged and
>>>>>>> does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed
>>>>>>> publicly?</provocative>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no
>>>>>>>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find
>>>>>>>>> their places in the conferences or journals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as
>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Behcet
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my
>>>>>>>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed:
>>>>>>>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00
>>>>>>>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last
>>>>>>>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of
>>>>>>>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough
>>>>>>>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the
>>>>>>>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out
>>>>>>>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of
>>>>>>>>>>> the documents as soon as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing
>>>>>>>>>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list
>>>>>>>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm