Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <> Tue, 08 July 2014 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDBA1A016C for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 15:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.152
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bNZO9l-48LOb for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 15:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C12701A015B for <>; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 15:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2064; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1404859593; x=1406069193; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=YXwYHMMuc0LnnXbGEwYH5MinDELbtOpFyD2X3q5LmzM=; b=jFjv9BmGdSvDwIiE5teG1Xi4idGRxm8sFYUL7qTWnwEq6rE8xzTD62A6 1Hv4L7g4a6H/nSMsg2lI08cfAaEstZXhvXKnTMMHXzqkM/fcAgYsVjdBZ gkOIy/557iIzqutgTsQZt1Kd983EvlydBDvgomT4hMVf7acgTvO1pmZHq Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,628,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="338633469"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2014 22:46:29 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s68MkNrt009583 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 8 Jul 2014 22:46:23 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 17:46:23 -0500
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft
Thread-Index: AQHPmv5wkFhO8op8cEugUOmfPd8FAQ==
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 22:46:21 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 22:46:28 -0000


Please post your proposed changes to the ML. There is an editor for the
document, so its more appropriate you let the WG decide as what goes into
the document. Document editor just follows the WG consensus. You know this
all very well ..



On 7/8/14 9:46 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <> wrote:

>Hi all,
>I have been commenting on draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob for years.
>At some point the chairs set up the issue tracker and asked us to use
>it. I did put many comments on the issue tracker.
>In the meantime I have been involved in HA based flow binding entitled
>Flow Bindings Initiated by Home Agents for Mobile IPv6
>work was published as RFC 7109.
>I have noticed that the editor has consistently ignored all these efforts.
>Now that we came to a point of final decision, I decided to put all my
>comments in writing. I made an xml file from Rev. 10
>(BTW we had asked the editor to submit xml file for the draft but he
>did not listen as usual) and produced a complete revision which I
>called Rev. 11 and sent it in an email to the chairs.
>Here are the main points in this draft:
>This version is 5+ pages shorter than Rev. 10.
>This version removes the use cases section and replaces it with an
>overview of flow mobility actions describing the flow mobility
>protocol explicitly.
>This version removes FMI/FMA section.
>This version adds Local Mobility Anchor Considerations, Mobile Access
>Gateway considerations
>and much needed IPv4 flow mobility support sections.
>This section uses UPN/UPA messages to carry Flow Identification
>Mobility option and Flow Binding Action Sub-Option
>   and Target Care-of Address Sub-Option defined in RFC7109.
>I propose this version to be used for further work and let Carlos
>further maintain the document in just a few steps that are left.
>netext mailing list