Re: [netlmm] Closing NETLMM WG?

<> Tue, 14 September 2010 12:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CF6E3A695D for <>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 05:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jZrQo3UTKQdR for <>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 05:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0DA73A6954 for <>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 05:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 14 Sep 2010 14:05:06 +0200
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:05:06 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:05:04 +0200
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [netlmm] Closing NETLMM WG?
Thread-Index: ActPMNNp8OaIHzErTDmS3blQK+qI9wEx+R+Q
References: <>
From: <>
To: <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2010 12:05:06.0455 (UTC) FILETIME=[120C3270:01CB5405]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Closing NETLMM WG?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETLMM working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:04:53 -0000

Dear Jari, Gerardo,
Once the open IESG discussion issues are clarified for 'mip-interactions' I suggest (in addition to the already proposed changes e.g. w.r.t. security, terminology, and figure references) to consider following nits for draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-06:

Generally there seems to be no logical or technical difference between LMA/HA and HA/LMA so I would opt for using HA/LMA consistently.

s/have implications of how/have implications for how/

s/the the binding cache entry of the HA/the binding cache entry of the HA/
s/packet are encapsualted/packet is encapsulated/
s/there is valid binding cache for/there is a valid binding cache entry for/

              Chowdhury, K., Ed., "MIP6-bootstrapping for the Integrated
              Scenario", draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-06.txt, 2008
(isn't this an informative reference?)

Best regards

BTW, I also agree on "sucessful WG completion" :-)

-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [] Im Auftrag von Jari Arkko
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. September 2010 10:28
Betreff: [netlmm] Closing NETLMM WG?


I am looking at the work that the group is doing, and two of its 
documents are hopefully soon approved as RFCs:

- mip-interactions (waiting on 2 ADs to clear their discusses)
- pmipv6-mib (going to MIB doctor review)

Seven other documents have already been published as RFCs, including the 
key base specifications. There is one more document that the group is 
working on, lma-discovery, but progress on that seems slow. I was 
wondering if it would be time to declare success and close the working 
group. The remaining document could either die if there's no interest, 
be AD sponsored to an RFC, or moved to NETEXT WG which is already 
working on similar topics.

Thoughts? Comments?

Jari (who is having a WG cleanup day)

netlmm mailing list