IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-08 as a WG document - Objections

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Wed, 06 January 2021 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.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 B5CA33A100F for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 08:51:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 Hd6fUzC1CEJE for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 08:51:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb31.google.com (mail-yb1-xb31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02CC43A0DDD for <dmm@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 08:51:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb31.google.com with SMTP id y4so3400575ybn.3 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 08:51:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=7BW4CXJjtsvP7MzJndAA8Q98ZZ2575JvOMIALOI63QI=; b=t1oN6vXWdigo0oeVh4WuXZApARPIPnjmSNNC4tDHyp1AqDQptwYs701puIGeSsWnbX qKmbIpD+4WUGcH/sESZpehpBHT3c2EroOBde62DOyc0KwAs9piwxtt4Zl5ivG2sptQeW GZoRX83Lq4rgoZbzDr40e9QVtJnq/LCtkpkJ62x1ytYB5GS425J90JJx1xq3AayguscN 4Mupgbv1VOAFrUoJHalTBFx3Z51Mw+aabdlX4169J19daU8WdsPLpiyiMeA9xvlbvG9z Amew6RUUAROixdRGbA/Md1ihTad/b9oHrVd6ot9NyFFDUpSsQbpnrxJKobuBi387ccKb jC9w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7BW4CXJjtsvP7MzJndAA8Q98ZZ2575JvOMIALOI63QI=; b=k7qs/9meqgzPJffxU8DgKBxPYFAbtSmh0u7wOMxEDI16EPocMQ+0/yytj1Jf0GE/Z1 u0eehbTMJFuyoZUfDE5IiIhDJYiIyCfx4jNzgqIHIwTtush93LitLL0HVEzM25gVC5UV OXF3animn/2LgPFcTSD/YGiX1753cv0sFeXTKAhBixZiignPfqStlExgXHibA2QJDPnU 8H37WBSxXZ0+dLxnlVfqaU79RBUGiZLA0V7RvCt4/AR/xjTMWBmJXmjIe+xjnXP9neoq yNCdhz8x0OkQzJIvIG+JJvBvWSwnnXf5/LAWtPXVOz0aMKIKovO7AkXuS17NT9vvbuSC F1yQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530XXhX4dJYYXsyIumVkjvcXBK86sGLvCRmdFG5s95iipkwMV5VF 5EqcllIpEOEZm0ZWxKO70pD+2CVh3THP95Kp8yX26OSOu00=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw6Vm2GiSmcFzT0TCQNBBW52SuNjWBrY60lRkaX/k8xPCRN2FlzFZRIEz9Pvte7qreap39y0SvQ6QcZdaUu2Ak=
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:187:: with SMTP id r7mr7400088ybl.324.1609951913115; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 08:51:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <SN6PR13MB2334AD398B1B438613DE845085D10@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <96ffc11c-a823-19ca-3039-7881f60dd9c6@joelhalpern.com> <BYAPR13MB4197FB85159A5B393B02CBE8D9D10@BYAPR13MB4197.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <198e4e59-a9e8-6f46-e4f0-6558ae1f909e@joelhalpern.com> <HE1PR07MB3386BF1545AB37BE66E909C99BD10@HE1PR07MB3386.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAF18ct7zJJ3MWqth_U+-UvxLzoe0R_vNQQbNKWdF+SRuOH1cZA@mail.gmail.com> <fa56d084-6dbc-03d8-2da3-5bc53e4e9bc6@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <fa56d084-6dbc-03d8-2da3-5bc53e4e9bc6@joelhalpern.com>
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 10:51:42 -0600
Message-ID: <CAC8QAce25t2F3XfBxSCg2A41fOv08_+-uMi8R4SFKVukY_U6KQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: dmm <dmm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e301dd05b83e231b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/isnCkSrApPD99QHCgX7s7rHw8JU>
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-08 as a WG document - Objections
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, 06 Jan 2021 16:51:57 -0000

This is an excellent review.
More below.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:11 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> Looking agin at the document, I have multiple problems with adoption of
> this document.
>
> First, as just discussed, it seems to be laying out an archtiecture, but
> that architecture is not consistent with the other work going on in the
> IETF (specifically in the routing area, and known to many of the
> co-authors of this work.)
>
> Second, the document states that it is Informational, and then is
> written as if it is defining the one and only way to structure the
> needed system.
>
> Third, related to the second, this document seems to assert that there
> is a specific and correct way to use IETF technology to solve the
> problem.  Then, about three quarters of the way through it remembers
> that there are multiple alternatives for some parts.  The IETF rarely
> writes implementation specifications.  There are other SDOs that do so.
>

This reminds me what is happening in quic WG which keeps producing
implementation specs.



>   They can wrestle with the problem of defining something that can be
> utilized by multiple operators with varying constraints.  Why would we
> want to get into trying to have that fight?
>
> For the WG chairs, I am trying to figure out how this even fits the DMM
> charter.  It is a LOT more than network exposure, which is the closest I
> can see in the charter.
>
>
I had raised this charter issue long time before.
I pointed out that dmm has to recharter and even maybe make a BOF before
working on these.
They have all been ignored.

Hope that they won't this time :)

Folks, +1 on all counts.

I have to clarify that this mail is nothing personal, I know some authors,
they are my friends, the chairs are my friends.
No offense to anyone.

Happy New Year!

Behcet

> Yours, unhappily,
> Joel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email