Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

On 7/24/14 9:20 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

>> The WG has an issue tracker set up for this document.  It appears that
>> the document editor and chairs are using it to track issues raised.  Why
>> should these concerns be handled any differently.
> 
> Please refer to the Issue Tracker page:
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/report/1
> 
> I did have several issues there.
> The editor replied some of them but I was not happy with them.

Has anyone expressed support for those concerns?

> 
>>
>> Perusal of the mailing list archives and the minutes of previous netext
>> meetings reveals no support within the WG for these perceived defects.
>> That could be a result of a disagreement with the concerns raised or
>> could a result of people not understanding the concerns.
>>
> 
> There at least two common concerns that I believe several people share:

You believe or know?  Why have they not expressed those concerns on the
mailing list?  If they have, can you provide a pointer?

> 
> where is the flow mobility protocol in the draft?
> 
> Why is LMA prefix allocation policy a use case for flow mobility protocol?
> 
> 
> If the Editor does not understand these issues then he needs to read
> the revision I mentioned.

No.  As I said, that is not an appropriate way to express concerns.  You
have several concise questions listed above.  Why not expound on those
with the WG?

Regards,
Brian