Re: [multimob] Polling WG on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07

Hi Brian,

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>wrote:

> Thomas,
>      You are not mistaken.  The WG chairs are responsible for
> determining if there is consensus in the WG to advance a draft for
> publication.  If an issue was raised about the content of the document,
> it should be discussed on the mailing list.
>
>
Yes, of course.

If you read the draft, which I certainly did, it is clear that the base
solution, i.e. Proxy at MAG is OK for source mobility.

There is some performance issue which happens when MN as the mobile source,
but associated with a different LMA as mentioned on page 7. The performance
issue can be solved, as mentioned in Section 5 using  an optimized approach
to multicast source mobility based on extended peering functions among
Proxies.

(I put a capital on proxies).

So my question to the everyone is why do we need PIM at MAG discussion in
this draft?

If we don't have PIM at MAG discussion included, the document will not be
garbled for sure, instead it will be consistent and much better for
Multimob.

Garbling would happen if for example Section 4.3.5 is taken and moved to
Section 5 after Section 5.1.

Regards,

Behcet

Regards,
> Brian
>
>
> On 1/9/14 3:35 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to garble drafts
> > after they had successfully passed WG last call.
> >
> > Am I mistaken, Brian?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > On 09.01.2014 21:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like to get consensus
> >> opinion on one issue regarding this document that came up recently.
> >> Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list.
> >>
> >> ISSUE:
> >> Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver mobility, we only
> >> worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224.
> >> However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 covers PIM at MAG for
> >> source mobility starting with Section 4.3.
> >>
> >> Question:
> >>
> >> Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility, then say YES,
> >>
> >> if you do not support it then say NO.
> >>
> >> We need as many people as possible to express opinion on this issue. The
> >> deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014.
> >>
> >> If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors to remove PIM at
> >> MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the revised document to
> >> IESG.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Behcet
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> multimob mailing list
> >> multimob@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
> >>
> >
>
>