Re: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation: draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02

[Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Behcet,

12/3/2015, 10:43 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti:
> Hi Jouni,
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Behcet,
>>
>> 12/2/2015, 11:02 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti:
>>>
>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As an individual contributor I support the adoption of this I-D. MCoA is
>>>> a
>>>> feature that we still lack..
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you sure?
>>>
>>> MCoA is solved in Netext Flow Mobility draft,
>>>
>>> draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-14
>>>
>>> is the latest draft.
>>
>>
>> Sorry for my improper wording regarding which part of the MCoA I meant. I
>> don't see how draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-14 would handle the case of
>> registration when the Proxy-CoAs are from the same MAG.
>
> I wonder why would that be needed?
> MN doesn't need it.
> So this draft seems to be addressing a non-problem.

I'll let the WG to determine whether the feature is needed or not.

For me (as an individual contributor) the I-D gives a standard way to 
register multiple transport connections/tunnels between a MAG and a LMA, 
potentially over different technologies (wired, wireless, ..) on the 
transport network side without needing to rely on engineering solutions 
to achieve the same (yes - I could do a somewhat similar solution e.g. 
using MPLS but that would then be loaded with all kinds of assumptions 
that may or may not work in multi vendor and cross operator environment).

- JOuni

>
> Regards,
>
> Behcet
>> The netext draft
>> specifically states Proxy-CoAs are from different MAGs.
>>
>> But it was a good thing you brought this up. The two I-Ds need to be in
>> sync.
>>
>>>
>>> BTW there was an issue in WG adoption call in IETF 93 in Yokohama. The
>>
>>
>> IETF 94 I presume.. AFAIR we did not ask for adoption in IETF 93.
>>
>>> chair asked only those who accept. The chair unfortunately did not ask
>>> those who oppose.
>>>
>>> As you know, if the chair wishes to ask a single question then the
>>> right one is any opposes.
>>
>>
>> Obviously you are right here but I cannot really comment on this what
>> happened in Yokohama since I was not on site or not even participating
>> remotely.
>>
>> Anyway, all adoption calls are confirmed on the mailing list and the "sense
>> of the room" during the meeting merely serves as informative quidance for
>> chairs.
>>
>> - Jouni
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Behcet
>>>>
>>>> The document itself still needs quite a bit of work. For example, I
>>>> wonder
>>>> if the caption for Figure 2 is correct. Also, Section 4.1. option fiels
>>>> descriptions are somewhat broken it seems. And so on multiple small nits
>>>> like unexpanded acronyms etc. However, these are mainly editorials. I
>>>> have
>>>> no problem with the technical solution.
>>>>
>>>> - Jouni
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 11/25/2015, 8:22 AM, Dapeng Liu kirjoitti:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> In IETF94, we initiated the call for adoption for the draft:
>>>>> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02>:
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
>>>>> Seems have got sufficient support during the meeting. We'd like to
>>>>> confirm the call for adoption in the mailing list for 2 weeks.
>>>>> Please send your opinion and comments to the list before December 9.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> ------
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> Dapeng&Jouni
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> ------
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> Dapeng Liu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm