Re: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation: draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02

["Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[e-mail]>]

> For me (as an individual contributor) the I-D gives a standard way to
>register multiple transport connections/tunnels between a MAG and a LMA,
potentially over different technologies (wired, wireless, ..) on the
transport network side without needing to rely on engineering solutions


Ack. MAG's ability to register multiple IP transport end points is a basic
protocol semantic which is always present in enterprise architectures.

Problem with this thread it confuses the hell out of every thing. You
cannot explain and you cannot have a meaningful conversation. Pierrick
gave up and now I give up. But, this is not new; WG after WG, same folks
and same pattern.



Sri











On 12/3/15 11:38 AM, "dmm on behalf of Jouni Korhonen"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>Behcet,
>
>12/3/2015, 10:43 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti:
>> Hi Jouni,
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>
>>wrote:
>>> Behcet,
>>>
>>> 12/2/2015, 11:02 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Jouni Korhonen
>>>><[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As an individual contributor I support the adoption of this I-D.
>>>>>MCoA is
>>>>> a
>>>>> feature that we still lack..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure?
>>>>
>>>> MCoA is solved in Netext Flow Mobility draft,
>>>>
>>>> draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-14
>>>>
>>>> is the latest draft.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for my improper wording regarding which part of the MCoA I
>>>meant. I
>>> don't see how draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-14 would handle the
>>>case of
>>> registration when the Proxy-CoAs are from the same MAG.
>>
>> I wonder why would that be needed?
>> MN doesn't need it.
>> So this draft seems to be addressing a non-problem.
>
>I'll let the WG to determine whether the feature is needed or not.
>
>For me (as an individual contributor) the I-D gives a standard way to
>register multiple transport connections/tunnels between a MAG and a LMA,
>potentially over different technologies (wired, wireless, ..) on the
>transport network side without needing to rely on engineering solutions
>to achieve the same (yes - I could do a somewhat similar solution e.g.
>using MPLS but that would then be loaded with all kinds of assumptions
>that may or may not work in multi vendor and cross operator environment).
>
>- JOuni
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet
>>> The netext draft
>>> specifically states Proxy-CoAs are from different MAGs.
>>>
>>> But it was a good thing you brought this up. The two I-Ds need to be in
>>> sync.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW there was an issue in WG adoption call in IETF 93 in Yokohama. The
>>>
>>>
>>> IETF 94 I presume.. AFAIR we did not ask for adoption in IETF 93.
>>>
>>>> chair asked only those who accept. The chair unfortunately did not ask
>>>> those who oppose.
>>>>
>>>> As you know, if the chair wishes to ask a single question then the
>>>> right one is any opposes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously you are right here but I cannot really comment on this what
>>> happened in Yokohama since I was not on site or not even participating
>>> remotely.
>>>
>>> Anyway, all adoption calls are confirmed on the mailing list and the
>>>"sense
>>> of the room" during the meeting merely serves as informative quidance
>>>for
>>> chairs.
>>>
>>> - Jouni
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Behcet
>>>>>
>>>>> The document itself still needs quite a bit of work. For example, I
>>>>> wonder
>>>>> if the caption for Figure 2 is correct. Also, Section 4.1. option
>>>>>fiels
>>>>> descriptions are somewhat broken it seems. And so on multiple small
>>>>>nits
>>>>> like unexpanded acronyms etc. However, these are mainly editorials. I
>>>>> have
>>>>> no problem with the technical solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 11/25/2015, 8:22 AM, Dapeng Liu kirjoitti:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In IETF94, we initiated the call for adoption for the draft:
>>>>>> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02>:
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
>>>>>> Seems have got sufficient support during the meeting. We'd like to
>>>>>> confirm the call for adoption in the mailing list for 2 weeks.
>>>>>> Please send your opinion and comments to the list before December 9.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> ------
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> Dapeng&Jouni
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> Dapeng Liu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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