Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com> Wed, 23 July 2014 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.com>
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 0329F1B2973 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 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=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 vigxd0kGTnWX for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE0E71B2890 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4075; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406135004; x=1407344604; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=O9SoeFupA5vtzJGvbd/O+dE6agIJraoMp50T28NoJf4=; b=bubV2GC6Qq+o3vgklAlvj3Qu2Ne8pqmMdUSAtyGgsYfMrpCMceo28bFH 023NCUqJ7JTbGAriD/uI0z4Lh+9y+Wzeha6BLTeCbYBUrGN4W3wqYWh1T /pqQRfZSm4EK6fEMEwIpbZYv6vFryYNrClMwbJAWtu/fftD1NT5dexrCR 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhwFAFTqz1OtJA2I/2dsb2JhbABZgw5SVwTHWwqGclMBgQsWdoQEAQEEAQEBNzQLEgEIGB4xBgslAgQOBYguAxENuTsNhxQTBI0egUsRAVAHhEYFjkWKZYIDjiKGHoNIbIEMOQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,718,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="342302994"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2014 17:03:24 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6NH3NiP001243 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:03:24 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.216]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:03:23 -0500
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: "sarikaya@ieee.org" <sarikaya@ieee.org>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft
Thread-Index: AQHPppgCTmRrE/hmjkOD6MZuW43UGg==
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:03:23 +0000
Message-ID: <CFF5354E.14FDC8%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAce=_tX96tTrock=tRCDdrufQSH3ipOpc5FU48jptUODAw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.21.144.180]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <192681B2A0F18F4B989EE1C684A86B56@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/KrOwK254TVUS_LFr8vnSAb8ma68
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: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:03:29 -0000

Behcet,

Ok. Fair enough. I introduced a change related to UPN/FMI/FMA in the
current version of the document. The proposal based on offline discussions
was posted on June/19/2014 and subsequently when no objections were cited,
the editor of the document drafted the text and inserted the same into the
document. 

Now lets discuss the issue on your proposed changes. AFAIK, no one in the
WG, not a single person,  understands what they are and why they are
needed. When Suresh was chairing one of the NETEXT sessions, he ran a
consensus call on the same asking if any one understood what the issue is
and you know the result.

Bottom line, if you have a issue with the current version, please post
your issue. State the problem, suggest the text. Do not send your version
of the document to the Editor to be included. I will not agree with you or
any one else editing the document and inserting text for an issue that has
no WG consensus. The point is on the consensus on on the issue and let the
Editor do the drafting. But, if the issue is with the Editor's text, post
it to the group and challenge it/suggest changes, don't just edit WG
document.
 
Please play by the rules.



Sri 




On 7/23/14 9:44 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>; wrote:

>Hi Sri,
>
>On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
><sgundave@cisco.com>; wrote:
>> Behcet,
>>
>> Please post your proposed changes to the ML.
>
>I expected that the chairs would post Rev. 11 on the list, it seems
>they did not.
>I am going to post it hopefully before the meeting.
>
>
>
>> 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 ..
>
>You mean when you say something it is consensus when I say something it
>is not?
>
>The editor is supposed to handle all comments. I don't remember the
>editors asking the WG for every comment made, is there consensus on
>this comment? I did not know that IETF worked like that.
>
>Regards,
>
>Behcet
>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Sri
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/8/14 9:46 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>; 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.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Behcet
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>netext mailing list
>>>netext@ietf.org
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>