Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft

Behcet Sarikaya <> Wed, 23 July 2014 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9084A1B2B77 for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SA0BnsHBvAqa for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03F761B2B4B for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id mc6so1153047lab.34 for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Q+FTQuC29KFLclvAar4A6YWKGu1Dm3Nonfxxr68/gQY=; b=G+0L+6DFXQ2sRk/V4R3De4YiV+/46e4S2RGjzqqEz+z8Y8z4mPHfbIrP2jwqA7HxTL eCIGTeOY5XrnWx05/eu6aw757YNx1Y4JGBJitPR0FH3WjeeUhb6swmJWBLR0IorFVglH DBZDdcvc3pz0KfSTjMj5UInFIcwaOqsdewuvPEsbVLZlWn0vCnejBxgutJJx4Pf7Puqw hx+JVsWO7PnCr7jpvnVgc/MJTRufTAZqw3pY6FqeK5ksKZhISIVjuzAQWmm9KApXiT8v XpUdbt+7l0/383KRspj52QhXzKuEOLZ84g3XQEetVSZkBaqkqOaCc/C2AmD7ZHkLn+9E mH8w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id jv9mr2779732lab.47.1406133866324; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:44:26 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <>
To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:44:29 -0000

Hi Sri,

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
<> wrote:
> Behcet,
> Please post your proposed changes to the ML.

I expected that the chairs would post Rev. 11 on the list, it seems
they did not.
I am going to post it hopefully before the meeting.

> There is an editor for the
> document, so its more appropriate you let the WG decide as what goes into
> the document. Document editor just follows the WG consensus. You know this
> all very well ..

You mean when you say something it is consensus when I say something it is not?

The editor is supposed to handle all comments. I don't remember the
editors asking the WG for every comment made, is there consensus on
this comment? I did not know that IETF worked like that.



> Regards
> Sri
> On 7/8/14 9:46 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <> wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>I have been commenting on draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob for years.
>>At some point the chairs set up the issue tracker and asked us to use
>>it. I did put many comments on the issue tracker.
>>In the meantime I have been involved in HA based flow binding entitled
>>Flow Bindings Initiated by Home Agents for Mobile IPv6
>>work was published as RFC 7109.
>>I have noticed that the editor has consistently ignored all these efforts.
>>Now that we came to a point of final decision, I decided to put all my
>>comments in writing. I made an xml file from Rev. 10
>>(BTW we had asked the editor to submit xml file for the draft but he
>>did not listen as usual) and produced a complete revision which I
>>called Rev. 11 and sent it in an email to the chairs.
>>Here are the main points in this draft:
>>This version is 5+ pages shorter than Rev. 10.
>>This version removes the use cases section and replaces it with an
>>overview of flow mobility actions describing the flow mobility
>>protocol explicitly.
>>This version removes FMI/FMA section.
>>This version adds Local Mobility Anchor Considerations, Mobile Access
>>Gateway considerations
>>and much needed IPv4 flow mobility support sections.
>>This section uses UPN/UPA messages to carry Flow Identification
>>Mobility option and Flow Binding Action Sub-Option
>>   and Target Care-of Address Sub-Option defined in RFC7109.
>>I propose this version to be used for further work and let Carlos
>>further maintain the document in just a few steps that are left.
>>netext mailing list