[netext] Flow Mobility Draft

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Tue, 08 July 2014 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BCF61B2BE0 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id deEc-1uJh_NT for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22d.google.com (mail-la0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53DD31B2BDE for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id hr17so4196432lab.18 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/92pxr2r6kvbd9bssF4nicSmmJJtV8Bj8pw3Cr+AxCg=; b=wv+LesZPUZhlZ/oYiBGf8aYkMRXATiNR7YxxONd37XK3veaEJlqLECK8rDjcPFFGkV AKTnBm+Tjmw9ginVf47EnjHwS0lsoZ3c9RaHvQ2+eEzxs7+vmpnJexLN0eS4lw0tVp+a p0RMAxYN7zncXlGiVXqG6P06cznCPnLoaGkXeFlwS25e/rdCjEpmr0H7pwiIrfZojiyS kTgwOVTt2035UUCFAW0I+pwRoOgFQc81Ki/iqdfxVN+41mUDwBu3hX8JXC5+v7OGUQKh 5Socqui9WuWMr5udtUbLXGZkotKg0AnXwaTVQ2ZDomlCWeXP0AZDNNjPC6IJ1Q3aTYlw 6ydA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id xj9mr26889878lbb.2.1404837964672; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:46:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcewL4CVfLD-xoEV3JRm5qw+o7Gyy5wwJbh3-V7Ym4FDUA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/ipb-MdrraeKI-PfzDZNCukM4hq8
Subject: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
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: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:46:20 -0000

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.