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

xiayangsong <xiayangsong@huawei.com> Sat, 13 August 2011 01:04 UTC

Return-Path: <xiayangsong@huawei.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 6A01A11E8084 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 OwYEf39ynbeN for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6E611E807E for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LPU00MJIDO6UG@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for netext@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:04:54 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.18.4.104]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LPU00EA5DO5WE@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for netext@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:04:54 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:04:55 -0700
Received: from DFWEML504-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.122]) by DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:04:53 -0700
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:04:52 +0000
From: xiayangsong <xiayangsong@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <CA686B71.1CF5F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.193.217.75]
To: "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Message-id: <CB60645E6241144CB82269604373757A0B470805@dfweml504-mbx.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Accept-Language: en-US
Thread-topic: [netext] Consensus call: Specify Access Network Information Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6?
Thread-index: AQHMV6n4iQzLbboj+0iLXz1Fln8x05UZ+QfA
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
References: <CA686B71.1CF5F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
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: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:04:17 -0000

Hi Chairs

My response is Yes and Yes.

At the same time, I would like to encourage authors
to elaborate the scenarios of applications of this option.
I assume this is mainly for WLAN. Is there any consideration
regarding WiMAX/LTE and variants?

BR
Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:08 PM
To: netext@ietf.org
Subject: [netext] Consensus call: Specify Access Network Information Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6?


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  [ ]
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  [ ]
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