Re: [netext] Next steps on draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Wed, 12 February 2014 18:39 UTC
Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
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 82BFA1A0614 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:39:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 PZ1Au5_nUUQI for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:38:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 738981A069A for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:38:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F04CD7813; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:38:43 +0100 (CET)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [163.117.139.72] (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cjbc@smtp01.uc3m.es) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D4E22CD77FE; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:38:43 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1392230323.21827.10.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:38:43 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcfPdfWwUvtCW5hHt_ufTwipW3VtuDcPCSQjbHmPJifCsA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1392151601.4016.127.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <CAC8QAcfPdfWwUvtCW5hHt_ufTwipW3VtuDcPCSQjbHmPJifCsA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5-2+b1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.5.0.1017-20498.001
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Next steps on draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
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, 12 Feb 2014 18:39:01 -0000
Hi Behcet, On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 11:35 -0600, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano > <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm restarting the discussion about the flow mobility draft. > 3GPP is > considering NB-IFOM again for Rel-13, so I think we should > close this > document as soon as possible. > > As discussed during the last meeting, all the issues were > cleared. Rajeev > made some comments on issue #15, brought by Pierrick, on the > use of > update notifications. Rajeev, are you OK with the proposed > resolution? > > > > I made many comments on the issue tracker, on the list and in > meetings. > > Actually we comments have now been culminated in HA-based flow > mobility protocol as in RFC 7109 (please see my previous mail on the > list). > > > You always preferred to ignore them, why? The WG agreed on how to resolve all your issues. The document reflects the WG consensus. I even remember Suresh going one by one in one meeting and everybody agreed. Carlos > > I remember very well, in the last face-to-face meeting the chairs > asked you to meet with me during the meeting and try to resolve the > issues face to face. > > I saw you in the breaks, you never attempted to talk to me. I was > ready to talk. > Again, I think that PMIPv6 flow mobility protocol should be compatible > with RFC 7109 because on this way the implementers can reuse HA code > for PMIPv6 as well. > > > Regards, > > > Behcet > > BTW, can I ask what is the current status of > draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support? I think we should > also > close that document. > > Thanks, > > Carlos > > > > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > >
- [netext] Next steps on draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-f… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [netext] Next steps on draft-ietf-netext-pmip… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [netext] Next steps on draft-ietf-netext-pmip… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] Next steps on draft-ietf-netext-pmip… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [netext] Next steps on draft-ietf-netext-pmip… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] Next steps on draft-ietf-netext-pmip… Rajeev Koodli
- Re: [netext] Next steps on draft-ietf-netext-pmip… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [netext] Next steps on draft-ietf-netext-pmip… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- [netext] Logical Interface document - Reviews Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)