Re: [DMM] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-11

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 07 April 2021 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
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 6A77F3A23F6 for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 11:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 KI86ju3-jowK for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 11:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A26B3A23E7 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 11:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFtCn6ZQkz6G870; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 11:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1617820037; bh=P98y4W9rNQ9pA6f1JespNe9fpBZcta4hc6qRIfEEpt0=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZPa0tshlxt8tvD+Ny/28VNlfZPtCSsO5kIdqEYo1ajgAqb0qSONfxlgi+KfURVVcy Rx6x3aPpCMvONVc4I9/tNv34yu+ATb5SeCTRkgtiPtgmzeHG9B4RtB90f0T2ASvT0x mOdLcIq641ebmUsU+J8HR5SZ6YeKr9ccZ1R7sqPs=
X-Quarantine-ID: <2mErDX5BpKlb>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FFtCn2n2zz6G7XB; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 11:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>
References: <AEA456FE-B2DA-4CB8-B26A-AD1CEB9985AE@cisco.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <ea645744-9f44-0fbd-84d1-80c84a5c7885@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:27:16 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AEA456FE-B2DA-4CB8-B26A-AD1CEB9985AE@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/T6yrvkFuqM6-DTtt64x3mn42tU0>
Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-11
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 07 Apr 2021 18:27:22 -0000

As I believe I said earlier, I consider this work to be inappropriate 
for the IETF and the working group.

Developing SRv6 is an IETF activity. We have done and are doing that.
Developing any needed extensions to address 3GPP requirements should be 
done in conjunction with 3GPP based on their requirements.  3GPP has not 
expressed any such requirements.
When other standards bodies have redefined the architecture of our 
protocols, we (the IETF) have objected.   And for good reasons.

Therefore, we owe other standards bodies the same respect.  We should 
not produce standards (this is a standards track document) that modify 
other bodies architectures.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/7/2021 1:35 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
> Working Group:
> 
> As we discussed in the last IETF meeting, we are issuingWGLCon 
> draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-11.
> 
> The document went through several revisions and there were good amount 
> of reviews on this document. I am very pleased with the quality of this 
> document. The authors have addressed all the comments and there are no 
> open issues that we are tracking at this time. We believe the document 
> is ready for IESG reviews and like to confirm the same from the working 
> group.
> 
> The following message commences a two weekWGLCfor all feedback.
> 
> Document Link:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-11.txt 
> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-11.txt>
> 
> Please post any comments/concerns on this document.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>