Re: [MEXT] IETF-81

[Thierry Ernst <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

I'm not sure that any WG is more relevant than any other.

A number of WGs are concerned with issues related to vehicular networks. 
When it comes to vehicular adhoc routing protocol, yes, MANET is more 
relevant. When it comes to session continuity and NEMO RO, MEXT is more 
relevant. But there are yet other issues for which other WGs are 
relevant too.

There will be a day where IETF will need a joint WG session to discuss 
all issues related to Cooperative ITS (Cooperative Intelligent Transport 
Systems) at large, but we need a critical mass, which we don't have 
reached yet. There is SDOs focused on Cooperative ITS (ETSI TC ITS, ISO 
TC 204, ISO TC22) who are integrating and extending protocols defined by 
the IETF (all the IPv6 protocol suite, mobility support protocols, etc.) 
but they are not considering involvement at the IETF as a priority (yet) 
(this is why I'm not pushing for anything at the IETF right now, because 
it could be counter-productive).

Regards,
Thierry Ernst.



On 09/07/11 17:14, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> I think that vehicular networking discussions could be
> at least initiated in the [manet] working group.
> AODV and OLSR have been adapted for vehicular, and
> much more could be done there.  Mesh has also been
> discussed in [manet].
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
>
> On 7/9/2011 2:44 AM, Georgios Karagiannis wrote:
>> Hi Dirk, Hi Alexandru
>>
>> I am also interested in having a f2f meeting in Quebec to discuss
>> vehicular topics!
>>
>> As I already understood, this meeting does not need to be seen as a MEXT
>> meeting.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Georgios
>>
>> On 7/4/2011, "[e-mail]"<[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should 
>>> need more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of 
>>> MEXT and potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex 
>>> on this list.
>>> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/?
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Dirk
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag 
>>> von Hidetoshi Yokota
>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12
>>> An: [e-mail]
>>> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81
>>>
>>> Hi Julien and all,
>>>
>>> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of
>>> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to
>>> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got
>>> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting
>>> will be needed.
>>>
>>> Please take a look at the following I-D:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for your support,
>>> -- 
>>> Hidetoshi
>>>
>>> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote:
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require
>>>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec.
>>>>
>>>> --julien&   marcelo
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> MEXT mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MEXT mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MEXT mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext