Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6?

Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp> Thu, 11 August 2011 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
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 E463C11E809C for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 0rkTci9zpGL1 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24A1311E8092 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8A317480C4 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:56:53 +0900 (JST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp
Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25c1tYMTIG8u for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:56:53 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.145]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E1317480B9 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:56:53 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (Mugi.mn.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.29]) by ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B6421B9AC for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:55:09 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <4E445E33.3080802@kddilabs.jp>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:56:51 +0900
From: Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: netext@ietf.org
References: <CA686394.1CF0F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA686394.1CF0F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation 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: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:56:20 -0000

Hi Raj,

> 1. Should the WG specify prefix-delegation support for PMIP6?
>
> Yes   [X]
> No    [ ]
>
> 2. Can we adopt as WG document the solution proposed in I-D:
> draft-zhou-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt as the starting point of this
> feature?
>
> Yes   [X]
> No    [ ]

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

(2011/08/11 6:34), Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> At IETF81, Carl Williams presented the I-D: "Prefix Delegation for
> Proxy Mobile IPv6"<draft-zhou-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt>
> 
> General consensus at the Netext WG meeting was that prefix delegation
> is a required feature for PMIP6. We gauged the interest in the room to
> adopt this I-D as the starting point of a WG I-D for the PD feature
> and observed the following:
> 
> "
> Chairs: how many people think the problem is relevant: 19
> How many have read it: 7
> How many think that the proposed solution in the draft can be starting
> point to work on the problem?
> In favor: 7 ;  Opposed: 1
> "
> 
> We are now following up with the questions on the ML.
> 
> Question to WG:
> 
> 1. Should the WG specify prefix-delegation support for PMIP6?
> 
> Yes   [ ]
> No    [ ]
> 
> 2. Can we adopt as WG document the solution proposed in I-D:
> draft-zhou-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt as the starting point of this
> feature?
> 
> Yes   [ ]
> No    [ ]
> 
> Please respond by August 18th on the ML.
> 
> -Chairs
> 
> Please see the discussion at the IETF81 WG meeting on this topic at:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/netext.txt
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> 
> 
>