IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] Poll: Regarding the flow-mobility WG I-D

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com> Fri, 04 September 2015 15:15 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 082B71B3E9C for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 vKb7vKESaW6Z for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 08:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84EB71B3E94 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 08:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6293; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1441379700; x=1442589300; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ah/JsZsDrmbCORiihDHNhqhKJQfVed6RYbaKyFmuD3s=; b=dNe0AClIAt2n73P3olXpDmLDiUmyd7kLM2j2a2Ky8XR7PNNYcgqGfCVd saEvM4Lbct0rockXoH5s8o61ODuCeK/oPzkwxGO+LEYMujVIIBYicTK/0 XVvbXHQa+oMoO4p+Ag7u8Pe337Do+3ua9Ckk4A5aMqohngrOZQyqAHuqQ Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CAAgA/telV/5FdJa1dglRNgT0GvVYBCYdwAoE4OBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEIwEBAQR5EAIBCA4DAwECKAchERQJCAIEAQ0FiBkDEsZdDYR8AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4ZzhHuCT4IrEQeELAWHLYZ3hy0Bhy6DW4FtgUqEMo04g1CDbCaEAHGIRoEFAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,470,1437436800"; d="scan'208,217";a="184762500"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Sep 2015 15:14:59 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t84FExR9028494 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:14:59 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:14:58 -0500
Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (173.37.183.80) by xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:14:58 -0500
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.3]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:14:58 -0500
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Poll: Regarding the flow-mobility WG I-D
Thread-Index: AQHQ5o0Pk5ITO7sczE2CW8vnYYUQVZ4sWi2A
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:14:58 +0000
Message-ID: <D20F01FD.1BCB97%sgundave@cisco.com>
References: <CAA5F1T1d9TOHMBGB=9qLPWibnyoFB4GefGkoMYcWENoZ6GJdFA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA5F1T1d9TOHMBGB=9qLPWibnyoFB4GefGkoMYcWENoZ6GJdFA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.3.150624
x-originating-ip: [173.37.102.14]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D20F01FD1BCB97sgundaveciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/M6A1dayFpzrlPELNGlYWac6OGRs>
Cc: "netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Poll: Regarding the flow-mobility WG I-D
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 04 Sep 2015 15:15:02 -0000

Yes. This document must be published.

This document addresses a key missing extension to the protocol.  The work is mostly complete and its ready for publication.

IETF has invested quite a bit of time on this protocol and its important that we complete these few missing extensions and keep it under maintenance.





From: netext <netext-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com<mailto:bpatil1@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, September 3, 2015 2:11 PM
To: "netext@ietf.org<mailto:netext@ietf.org>" <netext@ietf.org<mailto:netext@ietf.org>>
Cc: "netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>" <netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>>
Subject: [netext] Poll: Regarding the flow-mobility WG I-D


Hello,

We would like to do a quick poll on the I-D: Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility <draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob>

Current status of this I-D: Expired (as of Aug 29th).

The flow mobility I-D proposed : "extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol that are

   required to support network based flow mobility over multiple
   physical interfaces"

Question to the WG:

How relevant is this work and this extension to the protocol at this phase of the PMIP6 protocols lifecycle?

Should we standardize this extension or simply drop it.

Standardize it [  ]
Drop it    [  ]

Your feedback is appreciated. Please respond by 9/11/15.

Rgds,
-Chairs


--
Basavaraj Patil

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email