Re: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls

[Thierry Ernst <[e-mail]>]

The purpose of conference papers is to do research, so I don’t see how conferences papers would help to do … maintenance of IETF RFCs. In addition to bug fixes, MIPv6 and NEMO need to be progressed in the IETF hierarchy of standards. There are issues and options to be discussed, probably even extensions; a WG must host such work. My take is that dmm is the right candidate WG for this to happen.

Regards,
Thierry Ernst.


> Le 11 janv. 2016 à 17:35, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Thierry Ernst <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> What are protocols you think no one uses ?
>> 
>> MIPv6 and NEMOv6 needs maintenance, and probably more than than maintenance.
>> 
> 
> Thierry, I meant PMIPv6 which was designed for operator networks.
> 
> For MIPv6/NEMOv6, I think in Europe, some research based use is
> happening, to my knowledge at a very small scale.
> mip6 WG has been closed long time ago.
> I wish it were still open, that would be like in good old days.
> 
> So conference papers and ISE is still my recipe.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
>> Regards,
>> Thierry Ernst.
>> 
>> 
>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 à 20:48, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Jouni.nosmap <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Well one can always pursue ISE/AD sponsored track if one so feels like.
>>>> 
>>>> Just saying there are options..  if one desires to go through the WG process DMM has provisions for Mobile IPv6 protocol family maintenance work.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I started this thread by stating that:
>>> 
>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no one uses?
>>> For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find their places in
>>> the conferences or journals.
>>> 
>>> No one objected to the first point.
>>> 
>>> So what is the justification for maintenance? As I said before,
>>> charter items can be changed or they do not have to be used.
>>> 
>>> Behcet
>>>> Jouni
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos..
>>>> 
>>>>> Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> kirjoitti 8.1.2016 kello 9.15:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented extensions of
>>>>>> the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue within IETF.
>>>>>> Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why not ISE? For both MIPv6 and MIPv4.
>>>>> Of course you may not be able modify existing RFCs but just write it
>>>>> as a new draft and do not bother dmm where future protocol work is
>>>>> supposed to be done.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Behcet
>>>>> 
>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Alex, all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it’s fine to work on MIP6
>>>>>>> improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I totally agree.
>>>>>>> And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and the related
>>>>>>> suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard track. It has
>>>>>>> been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly right to
>>>>>>> do it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the work, if
>>>>>>> not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Thierry.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 à 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu
>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Behcet,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic
>>>>>>>>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6
>>>>>>>>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their
>>>>>>>>> prime time as “hot research topics". Looking at the existing charter
>>>>>>>>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can
>>>>>>>>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Jouni I can agree with you in general.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations very
>>>>>>>> important in some places including where I work.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly protocol and
>>>>>>>> implementation bugs which need correction.  Actually some of the corrections
>>>>>>>> have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations thrive
>>>>>>>> where WG cares little.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <provocative> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged and
>>>>>>>> does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed
>>>>>>>> publicly?</provocative>.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no
>>>>>>>>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find
>>>>>>>>>> their places in the conferences or journals.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as
>>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Behcet
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my
>>>>>>>>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed:
>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00
>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last
>>>>>>>>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of
>>>>>>>>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough
>>>>>>>>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the
>>>>>>>>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out
>>>>>>>>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the documents as soon as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm