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

Hello Sebastian,

If this protocol is implemented maybe we should go for standard track
document.

What do you think?

Also you did not say which parts you implemented?

Regards,

Behcet

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Sebastian Woelke <sebastian.woelke@posteo.de
> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I reviewed pmipv6-source-06 for the WG last call, I implemented parts of
> it and weeks after the last call I think the draft is still in a good shape
> and ready for the next step.
> I also think the draft get a consistency problem if we remove this chapter.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Sebastian
>
>
>
> Am 09.01.2014 21:51 schrieb Behcet Sarikaya:
>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt
>> <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to garble drafts
>>> after they had successfully passed WG last call.
>>>
>>
>> This is not garbling the draft.
>>
>> Please refer to the shepherd document:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html [6]
>>
>>
>> In order to answer positively many questions like 2, Working Group
>> Summary, or 4,
>>
>> We need to get WG's opinion.
>>
>> I personally am confused.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet
>>
>>
>>  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 [1]
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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 [2]                   Fon:
>>> +49-40-42875-8452 [3] °
>>> ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt [4]    Fax:
>>> +49-40-42875-8409 [5] °
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>> [2] http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet
>> [3] tel:%2B49-40-42875-8452
>> [4] http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt
>> [5] tel:%2B49-40-42875-8409
>> [6] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> multimob mailing list
>> multimob@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>>
> _______________________________________________
> multimob mailing list
> multimob@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>