Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6?

Jiang Dong <jiangdong345@gmail.com> Thu, 11 August 2011 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangdong345@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B9121F877D for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q1Ud+CNts6Qu for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E12C21F86BE for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iye1 with SMTP id 1so836669iye.27 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=m4hq6t0nBaTLyRpeYddTw/wRe4GcEjYawhB0kG465Lg=; b=wU/GLzWjhBTtyrOcI1LGV8HLkBWUEJNCHW6RnhOeMyO+4NiZrKJ6piLFN+2Z5HMjki vrm4v7t9D3HmwjhzCqZeTTY9LkaqL9mkMocLPfhJw3ETSo+KNTTivHKvtjz0i6YSGnZf VZUTk0YIuP+blmmPh31T+Zd2+AcjNrDnfXl08=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.116.28 with SMTP id k28mr12257058ibq.7.1313054812101; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.13.141 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:26:52 +0800
Message-ID: <CACFhG6C=yiBjyV61+vD1oWmpXGDGfTTONHrhN=syLy9sp2xdeQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jiang Dong <jiangdong345@gmail.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com, netext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636920306a55b7a04aa376579"
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6?
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:26:19 -0000

Q1. Yes
Q2. Yes

Best Regards,
JiangDong

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
At IETF81, Carl Williams presented the I-D: "Prefix Delegation for
Proxy Mobile IPv6" <draft-zhou-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt>

General consensus at the Netext WG meeting was that prefix delegation
is a required feature for PMIP6. We gauged the interest in the room to
adopt this I-D as the starting point of a WG I-D for the PD feature
and observed the following:

"
Chairs: how many people think the problem is relevant: 19
How many have read it: 7
How many think that the proposed solution in the draft can be starting
point to work on the problem?
In favor: 7 ;  Opposed: 1
"

We are now following up with the questions on the ML.

Question to WG:

1. Should the WG specify prefix-delegation support for PMIP6?

Yes   [ ]
No    [ ]

2. Can we adopt as WG document the solution proposed in I-D:
draft-zhou-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt as the starting point of this
feature?

Yes   [ ]
No    [ ]

Please respond by August 18th on the ML.

-Chairs

Please see the discussion at the IETF81 WG meeting on this topic at:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/netext.txt