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

Julien Laganier <> Fri, 12 August 2011 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6070211E809E for <>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cuyEf485iCER for <>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D6C11E8090 for <>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so2704312wyg.31 for <>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Or0ldf98FSYLNncFppHdC8jBvtwWsuoBsGR9l3mwH5c=; b=afQLi7vE5SM+TzGp+EpPzbruVzeFuTwTu6rCNuSEkDsEbq7fkMZ1pX/FFQi9eJth2z tESVkIvxasFbo5eBsCuDhZaPiV8JTX200gd09HoBTPgej7EwIpsA4Fwtcde8jyF7rhjH WChtTpF3pDuUoGgM8NL4dZKfwU3K2+s53qp6Y=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id t9mr1218677wbt.9.1313175827858; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:03:47 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Julien Laganier <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:03:11 -0000


On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:13 AM,  <> wrote:
> Hi Julien,
> On 8/12/11 12:55 PM, "ext Julien Laganier" <> 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.

Are you assessing the issue I described as not fundamental in your
function of  WG chair?

The "approach" of resolving the issue by making it someone else
problems does not address the fundamental issue that if one of the
MN's radio access isn' t working properly, having the LMA unilaterraly
direct a flow there will harm the MN ability to communicate without a
mean for the MN to recover.

So yes I disagree.

I have written the issue down on this mailing list many, many times, I
have discussed  it many, many times, and the issue was never addressed

Your denial that this this fundamental also does not hint at how
further discussions can possibly resolve that issue. And keeping this
controversial feature in the draft ensure that the basis on which we
discuss is un-agreeable to a number of people in this group, and is
fundamentally broken. Not a very good starting point IMHO.