Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Wed, 23 July 2014 17:23 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8ABE1A02F7 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GuKap0CzxaBS for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC2FE1B2B94 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id z11so1129307lbi.41 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=g+2t2FcQ0KMUgd30ZoezZamgYD1GJFE8edntyRhcZ7w=; b=XMArlgLXkNSQr91s2Kg8sJmjqD/ytYxK0tg67Q3WSZWg5NmdHQ7UWwcfwYazU6IrXo RhXuULBTRjGqXHGM/dvSiKkCf46JWnN6rM+SO3uAA3FZa+GXdIzVR64Rt+2tvZeUmJjQ O+UFtJY1We63T5KTAXcdslXILPec2D5JpZrjcGnXRxZRy6QFmy4I9ULaIF8cMshjMQGq NR2+bDPMXUmIvoTCvFOAmNf+vbe9qOmkQ9ir9ZLVlyX+OkzwmlE4l9lXzhR9fcndxWxu qVTZ6/dpROPVbkfaWTMhCfLufbxjMOlLAyKyJG84j+0wZtEmfFlYg3BlDUmeILvx2IhH l3cA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.29.72 with SMTP id i8mr3205857lah.38.1406136144159; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.191.228 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CFF5354E.14FDC8%sgundave@cisco.com>
References: <CAC8QAce=_tX96tTrock=tRCDdrufQSH3ipOpc5FU48jptUODAw@mail.gmail.com> <CFF5354E.14FDC8%sgundave@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:22:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcfvdzuh7E7f-s=JfdhXnDMfLU9=V3+rtNFeSq=A9Za09w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/rd7Y3MF8QZZZx__Bq6pEPpomzc8
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:23:03 -0000

Sri,

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
<sgundave@cisco.com> wrote:
> Behcet,
>
> Ok. Fair enough. I introduced a change related to UPN/FMI/FMA in the
> current version of the document. The proposal based on offline discussions
> was posted on June/19/2014 and subsequently when no objections were cited,
> the editor of the document drafted the text and inserted the same into the
> document.

The story does not stop there, there are other thing on UPN/UPA (by
the way it is UPN/UPA not UPN/FMI/FMA).


> Bottom line, if you have a issue with the current version, please post
> your issue. State the problem, suggest the text. Do not send your version
> of the document to the Editor to be included. I will not agree with you or
> any one else editing the document and inserting text for an issue that has
> no WG consensus. The point is on the consensus on on the issue and let the
> Editor do the drafting. But, if the issue is with the Editor's text, post
> it to the group and challenge it/suggest changes, don't just edit WG
> document.
>
> Please play by the rules.
>

I already did. You can check in the archive. I asked many questions
and received no replies.

I read Rev. 10 sentence by sentence. I don't think anybody else did
this in the WG.
I can claim that I know flow mobility and I can show my credentials.

My assessment was that the only way to incorporate my comments is to
edit Rev. 10 completely and that's what I did.

Regards,

Behcet
>
>
> Sri
>
>
>
>
> On 7/23/14 9:44 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi Sri,
>>
>>On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
>><sgundave@cisco.com> 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,
>>
>>Behcet
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Sri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/8/14 9:46 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Behcet
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>netext mailing list
>>>>netext@ietf.org
>>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>>
>