[netext] Way forward for I-D: draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support

Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com> Thu, 06 March 2014 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <bpatil1@gmail.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 F15281A0110 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:11:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 MUpkCAx9FoEn for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-x233.google.com (mail-oa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9121A00F1 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id i4so3183953oah.38 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:11:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=CNzCrno/cFpoQtxA8cYPjTMfiKoZONcXAPIoim7DAYY=; b=YP3vGdntZVZFiId9bi8hE+DF8C8LmoUCv3c2BiaV0sN1CgD+bGEl9doAXpdjxd8gJV qqQawV1BrnXEg9NmZXbaoRMl3E8IktNwnISjKJsbidIFvbMiHje38rIanuw/eZJiJjIE FJxhQyir8asMkajgEq+1iHHUuzDts05ttVqKN/O6uA78IZ7mGf8NrZyteMD2XVfi9V6E 2pJQtNHgnsEHSD58JK9xPRmL3eQG0juhaUGPq/k5Rc7Dr2b97wVe6wP7Uona01aOU9Sq /9LrpJ9nRKRwII1rPNLeDv1gKV9HT01CXNWmFll0w4YSavgA5/cg/3/8WVTnyGBQI2Yq fxGQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.132.12 with SMTP id oq12mr7577968oeb.42.1394140270588; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:11:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.161.42 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:11:10 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:11:10 -0600
Message-ID: <CAA5F1T0NH=ZD-jggmKyKN9WB1_Qfcc3Q5nHd=97R5PVm+Cm8QA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>
To: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b47286e9878e504f3f693fb"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/Ypd3cfAW9dxP8RgqxXzgdnSk9tc
Cc: draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [netext] Way forward for I-D: draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support
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: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 21:11:16 -0000

Hello,

The logical interface support I-D (Logical Interface Support for multi-mode
IP Hosts <draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support>) has been discussed
by the Netext WG almost since the time the WG was formed. The key objective
of this document was to provide information of how to maintain session
continuity within a PMIP6 domain when the mobile device does a handover
across access technologies. The suggestion was to use a virtual/logical
interface and this I-D was capturing information about such interfaces.

The logical or virtual interface is a fairly well understood concept today
and is available in a host of different operating systems today (as the
document also mentions). The relevance and need for this I-D in my opinion
has diminished and it is no longer needed.
I do not see an essential requirement or clamoring from the developer
community for such an I-D. Additionally the functionality of a
virtual/logical interface is best left to individual operating systems.

The document itself has improved in quality over 9 revisions. I appreciate
the effort and work put in this I-D by the authors. But IMHO I do not see
value or anything to be gained by progressing this I-D as an Informational
RFC. The WG is better served by working on documents that solve a problem
which addresses deployment or enhances functionality. We need to make a
decision about work items which may have made sense when we initiatally
began but have evolved subsequently.

My recommendation w.r.t this I-D is to drop it from the WG. The authors
could consider asking the int-area if they see value in progressing this
work.

-Raj

-- 
Basavaraj Patil