Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft
Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Thu, 24 July 2014 13:24 UTC
Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBDA1A0316 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z8lL3QgguHvj for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03C9E1A0317 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C41078814A; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-b444.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-b444.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.180.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4BA71B0001; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53D10901.4000103@innovationslab.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:24:17 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
References: <CFF53D90.14FE0B%sgundave@cisco.com> <53CFF515.9040706@innovationslab.net> <CAC8QAcesq5v69n+ajnmU9hJ1bhWX_muBOkYg2Y_MjfQnU7AqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcesq5v69n+ajnmU9hJ1bhWX_muBOkYg2Y_MjfQnU7AqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CQVFkAW1dQ1MDM3IWL8scTWfOcDRTGEsw"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/46noqedOCDqTt5IAxov1p-jGlo0
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 24 Jul 2014 13:24:26 -0000
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
- [netext] Flow Mobility Draft Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft Brian Haberman
- Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft Brian Haberman
- Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft Brian Haberman
- Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft Rajeev Koodli
- Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft Behcet Sarikaya