Re: [dmm] [MEXT] IETF-81

Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp> Wed, 06 July 2011 08:55 UTC

Return-Path: <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1CB21F873A; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 01:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1-GfdBY28G-8; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 01:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C26521F8672; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 01:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991E817481CA; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:53:37 +0900 (JST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp
Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ezTqCCJSKn5E; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:53:34 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.145]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5904A17481B1; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:53:34 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) by ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2051A1B9B2; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:52:33 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:53:25 +0900
From: Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=4LZToqiMN7+dNu9LpFDT=FzHetw@mail.gmail.com> <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <CAE_dhju9phhpBdyUwUgGK576DTJKyM9BbsLV-cYyHd+RwNRvvw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE_dhju9phhpBdyUwUgGK576DTJKyM9BbsLV-cYyHd+RwNRvvw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: mext@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] IETF-81
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management <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: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:55:32 -0000

Hi Julien,

WG mailing list is the base of the discussion, but sometimes it takes 
very long time to proceed, by which it loses timeliness. 
Network-initiated flow mobility or Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) 
come from urgent needs and IETF has the reputation of responding to such 
needs in a timely manner. F2F meeting is generally more efficient than 
ML discussion and effective for the chairs to progress the standards 
process. I believe that ML discussion and F2F meeting are the two wheels 
of moving I-Ds forward and we shouldn't miss the opportunity of F2F 
meetings, which happen only three times in a year.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

(2011/07/06 0:29), Julien Laganier wrote:
> Dirk and Hidetoshi,
>
> Face to face meeting time should IMHO primarily be used to resolve
> issues that cannot be resolved on the WG mailing list. As of now I do
> not see any, hence the absence of a MEXT WG meeting.
>
> Best,
>
> --julien
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM,<Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de>  wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list.
>> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/?
>>
>> Best regards
>> Dirk
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Hidetoshi Yokota
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12
>> An: mext@ietf.org
>> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81
>>
>> Hi Julien and all,
>>
>> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of
>> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to
>> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got
>> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting
>> will be needed.
>>
>> Please take a look at the following I-D:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your support,
>> --
>> Hidetoshi
>>
>> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require
>>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec.
>>>
>>> --julien&    marcelo
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MEXT mailing list
>>> MEXT@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm mailing list
>> dmm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>
>
>
>