Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Sun, 06 November 2011 20:32 UTC
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6563C21F85CE for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 12:32:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TNJRlEXyakyC for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 12:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A017C21F858D for <mext@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 12:32:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bkbzv15 with SMTP id zv15so3532442bkb.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:32:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=aoWJzkJcJGjxQcux2Lf4GL5TTf0Dccd07MjWHo4mg8c=; b=C8evP5T14s1ez4tf+IKbp541AVrQYbMf+jESAM/huI4PYNxcq8D/HJbrXUnURZFCNk ThJepp3lvE7oucs2ThEIBK8XPEdD4S8iAXJmsz0BjKr2tM1H63Q+gIeGSwsmufDKFeob 8sRHKzB+nukU5E1gFm+OCWarqmF3junc7FVSU=
Received: by 10.204.140.129 with SMTP id i1mr17282023bku.19.1320611547161; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [188.117.15.102] ([188.117.15.102]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b20sm11338865bkr.11.2011.11.06.12.32.24 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:32:24 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcc85DKuerWsZC9S_C7bUzhdgSr9Z5yMFNngjtTcaoZv+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:32:21 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C90EE503-DF1D-4870-9768-4E7107872788@gmail.com>
References: <4EB2D421.4030905@earthlink.net> <CAD9800F.1D0F9%hesham@elevatemobile.com> <CACvMsLG496pFVaVM0aJzt9W+=kwAwJjMNru4OO45aK66iDhhgw@mail.gmail.com> <1672201A-C652-4204-99D9-3DE4D23D2BB2@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcc85DKuerWsZC9S_C7bUzhdgSr9Z5yMFNngjtTcaoZv+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.korhonen@nsn.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:32:31 -0000
On Nov 4, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi all, > > I am confused about all these very high level, intelligent looking comments, and I must say I am fed up with them :-). > > Non-tunneled communications is already there in DMM. You connect to the nearest HA and all new communications is non-tunneled. > > Do we agree that we should differentiate client-based and network based protocols and discuss them in different places? or even there is no issue for one. IMHO I see no reason to focus only on client-based or network-based solutions. FWIW the DMM solution space: o is incremental to an existing IETF mobility protocol, be that client-, network- or even transport-based. o or alternatively may not depend on a specific mobility protocol at all i.e. non-anchored solution is also in scope. o solution is backward compatible in a sense that if a host or a network does not support DMM, nothing breaks. o focuses on IPv6 because anything IPv4 is just NAT-games. - Jouni > > I think this is what we should decide now. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:19 AM, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote: > Pete, > > On Nov 4, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Pete McCann wrote: > > > A good architecture is made not only from deciding what to standardize but > > also from what not to standardize. > > Exactly. > > [snip] > > > > > Perhaps IETF could take LIPA as a starting point to design a cleaner > > mobility management solution. > > What came out from a certain SDO as a "Local IP Access" did not turn out as the most elegant solution :) But I do agree that from the idea & initial use case point of view, it definitely is something to look at.. even as a basis for a cleaner design. > > > It isn't clear to me that we should even start with tunnels as a basic building > > block. > > I am along the same lines. See my earlier mail on the charter http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04905.html > > - Jouni > > > > > > > -Pete > > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com> wrote: > >> Hi Charlie, > >> > >> I agree completely with you on the problems with the current interfaces in > >> LTE, and in 3G before that. > >> I don't know what the best way to go about it would be. I say this because > >> many people on this list are aware of what's happening in LTE and > >> presumably have similar opinions about the complexity of their solutions, > >> but it's still there. > >> > >> Hesham > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> > >> Organization: Wichorus Inc. > >> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:49:21 -0700 > >> To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> > >> Cc: <jouni.korhonen@nsn.com>, <mext@ietf.org> > >> Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group > >> > >>> Hello folks, > >>> > >>> For several years now, I have been studying 4G wireless > > [snap] > > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Jari Arkko
- [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Jari Arkko
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hui Deng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hui Deng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Jari Arkko
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Jari Arkko
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Thierry Ernst
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Pete McCann
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group liu dapeng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Pete McCann
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item (was: the futu… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Thierry Ernst
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item karagian
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hidetoshi Yokota
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hidetoshi Yokota
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group liu dapeng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group liu dapeng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group h chan