Re: [multimob] Fast Handover Solutions

["Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for checking.

To avoid the confusion, kindly rename the draft appropriately.
The draft title and the draft name should be consistent, and not mislead,
as it does now.

-Rajeev


On 11/27/12 9:24 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Rajeev,
>
>I checked again.
>The charter item is about PMIPv6 handover optimizations, not on fast
>handover.
>
>The draft name should have been handover-optimizations not fast-handover.
>
>Sorry about that because I had suggested this draft name.
>
>Without realizing that it would cause so much trouble.
>
>I repeat here again, the draft title did not change and the draft
>content is reflected in the title. This is the most important thing.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Behcet
>
>On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Behcet,
>>
>> On 11/26/12 1:46 PM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt
>>><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Behcet,
>>>>
>>>> these requirements are for a fast handover solution, i.e., a protocol
>>>>that
>>>> operates a *handover* in a *fast* manner.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover does not meet the
>>>> requirements, but had written earlier on the list that the name of
>>>>this
>>>> draft is misleading in two ways: (i) draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover
>>>>is
>>>> not a fast handover solution, and (ii) the name "fast handover" is
>>>>tied
>>>>to
>>>> RFC5568/RFC5949-like schemes for good reasons.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The draft title contains ... handover optimization ... and it reflects
>>>its content.
>>>We asked for this WG draft name because of the charter item to which
>>>it corresponds.
>>
>> Sorry, which charter item has "fast-handover"?
>> Could you clarify?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -Rajeev
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I think this clarifies your confusion.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Behcet
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 20.11.2012 00:09, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that these requirements are for
>>>>>
>>>>> draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast
>>>>>
>>>>> and not for
>>>>> draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Behcet
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> after the - somewhat uninformed discussion at IETF85 - chairs asked
>>>>>>me to
>>>>>> restate requirements of a "fast handover solution" for Multicast
>>>>>> Mobility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here they are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   (i) Handover should be fast (this is only true for a direct
>>>>>>pMAG/AR
>>>>>>to
>>>>>> nMAG/AR solution such as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-mult
>>>>>>ic
>>>>>>ast).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   (ii) Multicast handover should be fully synchronized with unicast
>>>>>> handover
>>>>>> (otherwise unicast and multicast states diverge as is a well-known
>>>>>>issue
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the RAMS-approach, i.e.,
>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   (iii) Multicast handover solutions should tightly integrate with
>>>>>> unicast
>>>>>> handover (only
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-mult
>>>>>>ic
>>>>>>ast
>>>>>> integrates with PFMIPv6 and FMIPv6).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   (iv) Handover management should reuse standard mobility and
>>>>>>multicast
>>>>>> protocol operations for easy implementation and deployment
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-mul
>>>>>>ti
>>>>>>cast
>>>>>> introduced the use of standard IGMP/MLD records for context
>>>>>>description
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> transfer, which has been copied several times).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   (v) Multicast handover management should integrate ASM and SSM, as
>>>>>>well
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> IPv4 (IGMP) and IPv6 (MLD), which is only provided by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-mult
>>>>>>ic
>>>>>>ast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on these facts, chairs and AD proclaimed to re-decide on
>>>>>>future
>>>>>> paths
>>>>>> for Multimob fast handover solutions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
>>>>>> ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner
>>>>>>Tor 7
>>>>>> °
>>>>>> ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg,
>>>>>>Germany
>>>>>> °
>>>>>> ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon:
>>>>>>[phone]
>>>>>> °
>>>>>> ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax:
>>>>>>[phone]
>>>>>> °
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> multimob mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
>>>> ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner
>>>>Tor
>>>>7 °
>>>> ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg,
>>>>Germany °
>>>> ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon:
>>>>[phone] °
>>>> ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax:
>>>>[phone] °
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>multimob mailing list
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>>