Re: [multimob] WG adoption call on draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt

[Hitoshi Asaeda <[e-mail]>]

Behcet and others,

>>> This document can be found at:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01.txt
>>>
>>> This mail starts a WG adoption call on this draft.
>> 
>> I don't think there was any consensus about adoption of this draft at
>> the last meeting.
> 
> Yes, there was. Please check the minutes.

Hmm, I didn't notice at all..

>> We've proposed the tunnel convergence problem solution draft;
>> draft-asaeda-multimob-pmip6-extension-07
>>
> Your draft and draft-zuniga present totally different approaches. They
> do not overlap with each other.

Right. They are totally different.

>> Why you eliminate the discussions in the meeting and the chance to
>> discuss in the mailing list?
> 
> Who said so? Your draft is still up for discussion. I already saw some
> comments on it in the list. So you should be happy.

It is not important whose draft is adopted.
Showing technical feasibility and contributions to communities is all
that really matters for WGs.

Ok, let's move on the discussion for draft-zuniga.

Maybe draft-zuniga has some value as it can escape from the tunnel
convergence problem.
Briefly, the approach requires that MAG attaches *one*
multicast-dedicate LMA (MTMA, the draft calls) and always uses it,
instead of the regular rfc5312 based LMAs, for all external multicast
streams.
According to this fact, it does not provide protocol improvement and
is not optimized (as all are done by operation), but simply proposes a
multicast service model for PMIPv6 to escape from the tunnel
convergence problem.

If people agree on the adoption, it's Ok. But I cannot find the reason
that it is proposed standard. Informational would fit to the current
approach if adopted.

Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda