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

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 12 August 2011 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.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 CEB4711E8080 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 unY-AiMpqyuz for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0817121F86B9 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so2665139wyg.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i4Qrn0fUb+u7+DRDiYctjcMFeCxTIOBL2pmb2LXNIRc=; b=neWIK9brKmSOAT5ffsLUE3s49AVjbNfZOWEWBg9q7eK3pR5cJYCySN9786wZ2timVN WeD5OQbdHypTRTGsv0378A1QPxxRat2LWHVsjwEk2ztHxwViS4cs+njHDRseiPm2DUg6 Vu9l0qlvsguVznZ3vIXq8w0gMnkFwedP8OG0k=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.38.164 with SMTP id b36mr1143816wbe.54.1313171723154; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.59.147 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA68600C.1CED7%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
References: <CA68600C.1CED7%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:55:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjtFERcsWQjs7a4GW1NFqyhD0wP21eYWe4Y=U4ANpzEtNg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 17:54:46 -0000

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.

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.

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.

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. 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
>