IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: (with COMMENT)

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com> Mon, 04 August 2014 20:15 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 47FBE1A0201; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 13:15:36 -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 mp-1O5ZKVu80; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 13:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4EBB1A01E8; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 13:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2451; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1407183334; x=1408392934; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=poXkUqUx0PwJvd5SzXAHgS+Y89Nycgiih+nxSYRh2Bk=; b=aYyUctz02T4+NyH+PMepHQ/pTVzEQYJ/2n/N+igsP3xtvdR3W1ov8f5j kiDHzpaI5Ca0wUTOoVLyYcM+pfsefiNpT8Khv5j3BhbOZZMZVXVtbfy4S gruL8+MZLtIz8ujdePOJs3eql3rFg/jBDXeWak7k+p9pd1FIu668GSJ37 U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoFAKfo31OtJV2Q/2dsb2JhbABbgw1SVwTMMAyGdVMBgRIWd4QEAQEDAQEBATc0CwUNAQg2BTILJQIEAQ0FCYgxCA3EQxeMHYJNEQFQAgWESwWcBoFUkwuCB4FGbAGBDDk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,800,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="66452876"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Aug 2014 20:15:33 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s74KFWvg007381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Aug 2014 20:15:33 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.126]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:15:32 -0500
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHPsCDX3fFbgAeTbkO8iw+b+jOTrA==
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 20:15:31 +0000
Message-ID: <D0053392.155892%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140804175615.16238.14171.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.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: [10.32.246.219]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <643BEF894417A14DA2034D4E88AD3C8A@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/Wkjcly18dpET0yvpRLmCwrNK1m4
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>, "netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: (with COMMENT)
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: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 20:15:36 -0000

Hi Adrian,

> a little odd for a Standard Track document, especially since there was
>apparently such clear
> consensus that this is a problem that needs to be solved. I guess I am
>old-fashioned enough
> to hope for running code from time to time.



The comment in the chair-writeup, "No vendors have expressly stated a plan
to implement this specification either" is not entirely accurate.

AFAIK, we do not have a process where the WG asks vendors to provide
implementation plans. So, the question was never asked and there was no
reason for any one to specially come forward and publicly announce their
intent to implement a specific draft and publish a time line. I'm not
suggesting the WG should ask such information either as that is touching
vendor product roadmaps and will be too intrusive.

Now that IESG is asking this question and my response is yes. Talking on
behalf of my company, we absolutely have plans to use this option in our
product line. 


Regards
Sri








On 8/4/14 10:56 AM, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

>Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: No Objection
>
>When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I don't object to this document, but I found...
>> No known implementations of the protocol exist at this time. No
>> vendors have expressly stated a plan to implement this
>> specification either.
>...a little odd for a Standard Track document, especially since there was
>apparently such clear consensus that this is a problem that needs to be
>solved.
>I guess I am old-fashioned enough to hope for running code from time to
>time.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>netext mailing list
>netext@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email