Re: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?

<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> Fri, 12 August 2011 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.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 6338511E8087 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 gPtDi1w6HPGh for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-sa02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5603311E808B for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-sa02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p7CIDHbP008889; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 21:13:17 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 12 Aug 2011 21:13:12 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-005.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.60) by NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:13:12 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-024.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.4.61]) by 008-AM1MMR1-005.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.60]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.002; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:13:11 +0200
From: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
To: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?
Thread-Index: AQHMV6MuHZ6NbgcL2k6ZQy/+0fAoQZUZYTUA//+xJQA=
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:13:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CA6AD4A3.1D12F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE_dhjtFERcsWQjs7a4GW1NFqyhD0wP21eYWe4Y=U4ANpzEtNg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115
x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.137]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <E95849BB2FF0E5409A705F6162C4EFB5@nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2011 18:13:12.0917 (UTC) FILETIME=[7FBFD850:01CC591B]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?
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: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:12:43 -0000

Hi Julien,

On 8/12/11 12:55 PM, "ext Julien Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hello Raj,
>
>While parts of this document are reasonable extensions to the PMIPv6
>protocol, I have indicated repeatedly that I had a fundamental issue
>with the other part of the document that lets the LMA unilaterally
>decides to move flows.

I don¹t believe there is this fundamental issue that (you mention) is a
show-stopper in the case of flow mobility for PMIP6. My recollection from
previous discussions is that the LMA makes the decision to move a flow
based on some policy which is either locally configured or obtains from an
external entity. You may disagree with that approach. We can discuss this
issue further and ensure that it is either fairly resolved through the
tracker.
My suggestion would be for you to write up this issue and upload it to the
tracker and we will resolve it to the satisfaction of the WG members.


>
>To my recollection this issue was never properly addressed and thus I
>am surprised to see that same draft again on the table for adoption.

All issues and concerns related to flow mobility for PMIP6 will be
addressed. The document will not progress until every issue has been
resolved. But at the moment we are not making any progress at all. The I-D
that we are asking for adoption here will only serve as the starting point
for all debates and I hoping that we will make better progress in
resolving the issues and improving the I-D through the process of
capturing issues in the tracker and proposing solutions and text that is
satisfactory to all. Without a formal process, we will be discussing the
same set of issues over and over with no forward progress.

>
>I understand the desire of this group to make progress, but i do not
>think it is fair to put for adoption as the baseline a version of the
>draft that has a fundamental and unaddressed issue that is
>controversial within the group.

IMO there is no fundamental issue with the proposal (but maybe I have not
understood your concern and the issue). Can you please write-up this issue
and we can discuss on the list?

>
>As a result I' d like to request that the draft be revised to remove
>that controversial feature before it is adopted. I believe this is the
>best way forward to make long overdue progress.

That is one option. Lets discuss what this controversial feature that you
refer to is and we can make a decision on whether to deprecate it before
WG adoption. If there are some earlier emails where this issue has been
already discussed, please do send me (and the list) a pointer.

-Raj

>In the current state
>of affairs I am accordingly answering to your question as below:
>
>> Q: Should we adopt as Netext WG I-D the document:
>> draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 which will be used as the
>> starting point in specifying the flow mobility feature for Proxy
>> Mobile IPv6?
>>
>> Yes  [    ]
>> No    [ X ]
>
>--julien
>
>On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:19 PM,  <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> At IETF81 the chairs made a proposal to adopt as WG I-D: Proxy Mobile
>>IPv6
>> Extensions to Support Flow Mobility
>> <draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03> As the starting point for
>> the specification defining flow mobility for Proxy Mobile IPv6.
>> We gauged support for and against adopting this I-D at the IETF81 WG
>> meeting with the following result:
>>
>> In favor: 18
>> Opposed: None
>>
>> As per process we are following up on the mailing list with the same
>> question. Please respond by Aug 18th, 2011 to the question below:
>>
>> Q: Should we adopt as Netext WG I-D the document:
>> draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 which will be used as the
>> starting point in specifying the flow mobility feature for Proxy
>> Mobile IPv6?
>>
>> Yes   [ ]
>> No    [ ]
>>
>>
>> -Chairs
>>
>> IETF81 WG minutes are posted at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/netext.txt
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netext mailing list
>> netext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>