Re: [netext] Milestone update for NetExt WG

[<[e-mail]>]

If the PD part of the I-Ds are the same, then you will need to justify the
advantages of your solution or identify issues with those specified in the
WG document.  
As you stated, "these are variants of a single solution".
The WG has decided to proceed with one approach and there is consensus on
that. 
What you are proposing is an alternative approach which needs to be
evaluated by the WG to determine what to do with it.

Since you have requested an agenda slot at IETF84, you will get an
opportunity to make the case to the WG.

-Raj

On 7/12/12 10:28 AM, "ext Alexandru Petrescu"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>Le 12/07/2012 17:20, [e-mail] a écrit :
>>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> On 7/12/12 10:05 AM, "ext Alexandru Petrescu"
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is something we could try to identify.  I personally strongly
>>> believe that if WG delivers to IESG now a draft doing network
>>> mobility with PMIP then that's done - any future try is going to
>>> face this need to answer _why_ network mobility with PMIP again, do
>>> it once and only one way, etc.
>>>
>>> This is something we could ask others oppinions: do you think that
>>> other PMIP-NEMO solution drafts are possible if we submit now
>>> draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-02 to IESG?
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> The WG has worked on the P-D solution as specified in
>> draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip for a while now. Is the solution broken? I
>> do not believe so. If the WG members are in favor of the solution
>> proposed in this I-D, then the chairs will issue a WG LC and forward
>> it to the IESG. The WG is not limited to standardizing a single
>> solution only for network mobility. And hence if your ideas proposed
>> in the I-D have traction, the WG could take up that work as well.
>> Your fears that the work would stop is unfounded.
>
>Raj,
>
>Half of the solution we propose is too close to the WG item: allocate a
>prefix with DHCPv6-PD, and PMIP, such that to support network mobility.
>(the other half - HNP division is more different).
>
>In the details, we believe our implementation to be better and the
>message sequence are different.  For example, our MAG would not
>interoperate with WG item's LMA.  And we need a DHCPv6 Server whereas WG
>item works _without_ a DHCPv6 Server.
>
>These are all variants of a single solution.  If this WG item goes to
>IESG then half of our draft is dead. (the other half - HNP Division -
>may still live, trying to do network mobility without modifying DHCP,
>nor PMIP).
>
>In my experience, it is very hard to convince a WG to do new work again.
>  The WG item's most prominent proponents will backfire very strongly
>about any new proposal doing the same thing.
>
>This is why I complain about the use of the term 'network mobility' in
>the existing draft.  Were it to say that the existing WG item draft does
>just 'prefix delegation' then maybe it could go.  But its current aim is
>particularly clear, and it is not 'prefix delegation'.
>
>Also, there is this work on the problem statement of network mobility
>draft... it seems decoupled from the WG item solution.
>
>Yours,
>
>Alex
>
>>
>> -Raj
>>
>>>
>>>> My final comment, please ask the chairs to request WG adoption
>>>> on your draft.
>>>
>>> I would like to but I believe it may be too early?  It has never
>>> been presented to a face-to-face WG session...
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards Sri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>