IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DMM] WG Review: Distributed Mobility Management (dmm)

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Wed, 08 October 2014 19:14 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 3A3BD1A1A63; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:14:34 -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 pyNuRPf22mUN; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22f.google.com (mail-lb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CD301A1A0A; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f175.google.com with SMTP id u10so8677416lbd.6 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 12:14:30 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MuoDnYSQRVYx292j3YLyo77UpIb8PGnMo10KOh1PH6Y=; b=H5lQxHY0sEgfU2tQcQylO2RU46wO2RvgmV2bikQlnzGAoAHYN5dT/tzZWZNwwrqfUl ordOVvQvhbZLPmctkA0v0uMIG406Ql74NC2r/baqxTqmGJxxIp4w9xZE7qp5yWjB7NV6 M60DocjO7LE54YF2G5mP2krcuq8ePs+UAcotHUegv1PKvQiBaWzjFDhS1S02GK3ShHrR nHws0///b7pPoUlVW5I4ybv9gc5W5X6aDfnQC/GfYctRcZma31JbO/BdkQzB+okSgG15 GFofsn/3chBspb3AFmqQIJ+oUeXQo5pmUnFhEyMdGsmWIYsNw78QwBXYCMH6PohY+PmA B7CQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.163.66 with SMTP id yg2mr13508725lab.38.1412795670447; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 12:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.77.37 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <543548F8.7060403@gmail.com>
References: <20141003193829.9669.13386.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54352235.7070304@gmail.com> <5BBFF707-2F25-4D30-9871-B5F17B9AF0B4@gmail.com> <543548F8.7060403@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:14:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAce7n3V1knDj+MdHtUFOpbFFyKHuCAQ_ty-zYoRrGvQEjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/b2-1jDDNmrylqlCMdnZs7siXF2c
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, dmm WG <dmm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DMM] WG Review: Distributed Mobility Management (dmm)
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: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 19:14:34 -0000

Hi Alex,

Added to the point you made, I have concerns on

Enhanced mobility anchoring work item text and the references made
there (BTW among others).

The RFCs cited there, RFC 6097, 6463, and 5142 all progressed after
the base protocol was developed,  RFC 3775 or MIPv6 for 5142 and  RFC
5213 or PMIPv6 for 6097 and 6363.
They were extensions to what the protocol had offering some more
advanced methods.

My concern is DMM is being rechartered to develop the base solution.
How could the base protocol be held to such a high standard even
before its existence?

I have similar concerns on the other work items and I think they carry
similar sense.

My suggestion is a base DMM protocol as an integrated solution has to
be developed first and not developed in so many pieces.

And then bring those three work items (or similar) up  as a rechartering issue.

Regards,

Behcet

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
<alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jouni,
>
> Thank you for the message.
>
> Here are the modifications:
>
> Where the Charter mentions "Mobile IPv6 protocol family (RFC x, y, z)" it
> should also mention RFC 3963 and RFC 5177.
>
> (these RFCs were mentioned in past versions but disappeared somehow).
>
> Where the Charter says "The working group may decide to extend the current
> milestones based on the new information and knowledge gained during working
> on other documents listed in the initial milestones. Possible new documents
> and milestones must still fit into the overall DMM charter scope as outlined
> above. Milestones:[empty]"
>
> Please clarify that "initial milestones" is "RFC 4888, RFC 4889,
> draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-08").
>
> Alex
>
>
> Le 08/10/2014 15:00, Jouni a écrit :
>>
>> Alex,
>>
>> Do you have a specific change to the text in mind? The charter text
>> uses systematically "mobile host/router" to make sure mobile routers
>> are not forgotten. However, charter also allows solutions that are
>> not specifically tailored to mobile routers.
>>
>> Jouni
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email