IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] Consensus call: Specify Access Network Information Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6?

Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Wed, 10 August 2011 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.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 DC05921F84F7 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.994
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.994 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.395, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Mz5VnAAo8E2N for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC0D21F84E4 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=1265; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1313016459; x=1314226059; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=2Ra454spvS9RK8KRpRt0yFLaFTNKR/ACSpy34uzlabQ=; b=XaI1y4CHDpJazQ8AB+2gThWHNtYYgJh4Cp1Mc5qNmwjTL4B7DhJcn1wo vXi10jaEZbdenjXxf3GrcUsLJ+xYk/V+OKanrg2FnFv//iKgGQSWvQMzU UHtjHl7k2os4lQwR3ITCfDTarj7xb4/AHD0d8ItQWoSi63tIII1sk+Tsw A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABIKQ06rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABBpzx3gUABAQEBAgEBAQEPAScCATEdAQhtMAIEARIbB4dMBKBoAZ5XhkYEh16LLIUTi3o
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,353,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="11946726"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Aug 2011 22:47:34 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7AMlYfN025298; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:47:34 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:47:33 -0700
Received: from 10.32.246.212 ([10.32.246.212]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:47:33 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:47:32 -0700
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com, netext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <CA685894.2401D%sgundave@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Consensus call: Specify Access Network Information Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6?
Thread-Index: AQHMV6n4iQzLbboj+0iLXz1Fln8x05UWr6bv
In-Reply-To: <CA686B71.1CF5F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2011 22:47:33.0939 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E74F830:01CC57AF]
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Specify Access Network Information Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6?
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: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:47:07 -0000

1. YES
2. YES


On 8/10/11 3:08 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
wrote:

> 
> The proposal: "Access Network Information Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6"
> <draft-gundavelli-netext-access-network-option-01.txt> Was discussed
> at the IETF81 Netext WG meeting.
> 
> Rough consensus from polling the WG members in the room indicated:
> "
> 5 have read the draft
> 4 think it is a relevant problem and we have to solve it
> 2 think it is no clear reason to carry more than ATT
> "
> 
> This email is a follow up on the WG ML before we make a decision. So
> please respond to the following questions:
> 
> Q1: Do you agree with the problem, solution and benefit of the ANI
> option as  described in I-D:
> draft-gundavelli-netext-access-network-option-01.txt?
> 
> Yes  [X]
> No   [ ]
> 
> Q2: Do you support adoption of the I-D
> draft-gundavelli-netext-access-network-option-01.txt as the starting
> point for working on this feature in the WG?
> 
> Yes  [X]
> No   [ ]
> 
> 
> Please respond by August 18th to the above questions on the ML.
> 
> -Chairs
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email