IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Tue, 02 June 2015 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63E31B2B63 for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 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, 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 YEgjBWW80ViQ for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4560D1B2B27 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbqq2 with SMTP id qq2so111023311lbb.3 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 12:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=k3JbF1LCjrjfl+sHLazG7IxJQUGKYiySgXC+zO4JN1Q=; b=pxKqr0GkKBCBNJhh+r4gA4UbX7TqQTIL8yqAozeeP+tQX9PtyTL6GmGVlkHGZ5NdE/ pUSGWu4Af35qVtQpRYIVyPbdWNq0vcxbYyCTOjiwrCPvNmIxnKoAQVeqylR0J5rCgm82 XX2VJ6eMHfyoGkAY2fqvLt2glmqOqgpd6FZb2NI68O1kjHUiPDQtiF5STyXK14/W1p67 GRz1OiCfrGIywVQKvRCJRK3WCHyYuUAkMsFNkxmjozt2pktnzBg6ejuxa/C5zkj4Suu5 2vXnQpDKPIsX+ttXjAmxbisGux2Ljbw4jlFIU8zB14ZKFSsH/qyRcgKNbAGQo4SCpGf6 mDpA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.42.140 with SMTP id o12mr19346918lal.15.1433273134645; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 12:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.74.225 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFwJXX5kEXMM4CWug4yHA_CfFFTyqxBysdn=qG1hfhHhVotiHg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC8QAccTQwa9p7+q8S40UtmZ2QdNEeYqVAzC_6hM37Wy2KRGrQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwJXX6O+WKngm_vd0XwcZKAouYuQ-zPQMD87JGeNa7Yqo+NhQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8QAceUkRYMZr-L3LDnjRmhdB+m4PEOv9cvz1xtGezCnzJdHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFwJXX5kEXMM4CWug4yHA_CfFFTyqxBysdn=qG1hfhHhVotiHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:25:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAccadmdD0s6q1qCzY54xw8mVhqpAAHWKmh_+S7ZsMMpi+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/2BCK1s0cLQD866uNH7jYKPiMkaQ>
Cc: "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 19:25:51 -0000

 Hi Matsushima-san,

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Satoru Matsushima
<satoru.matsushima@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Behcet-san,
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Satoru,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> Let me continue the discussion with your text in Section 3.2 where you
>> mention
>> vEPC may utilizes Forwarding Policy Configuration Protocol (FPCP)
>> that defines FPCP Agent function and Client function.
>>
>> I don't understand how you could justify defining a new forwarding
>> policy configuration protocol to do this Agent/Client functionality?
>> Why not use similar Agent/Client models that are being defined rather
>> than defining a new protocol?
>> I think this point requires much stronger justification which I could
>> not see in Section 3.2.
>>
>
> The text just describes about a part of where FPCP may be applicable in
> vEPC.
>
>
>
>>
>> Are you that we have to to reinvent the wheel, rather than reusing
>> something that is already available? How are we going to reinvent that
>> wheel also remains to be seen, I think.
>>
>
> Point taken. Which kind of wheel do you have in mind?

 Please check this draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi-02

Regards,

Behcet
>
> cheers,
> --satoru
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email