Hi Behcet, > -----Original Message----- > From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 8:50 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Brian Haberman; dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] Going forward with the DMM work items > > Hi Fred, > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Templin, Fred L > <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> wrote: > > Hi Behcet, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya > >> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 12:22 PM > >> To: Brian Haberman > >> Cc: dmm@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [DMM] Going forward with the DMM work items > >> > >> Hi Brian, > >> > >> You deleted maybe by mistake the first three paragraphs of my previous > >> mail. > >> > >> Let me add to those one more point: > >> > >> Previously mobility groups in IETF produced single protocols like > >> Mobile IP or Proxy Mobile IP. > >> These protocols have seen some operator adoption, of course not much but > >> some. > >> This time we will be asking the operators to adopt exposing mobility > >> state protocol, enhanced mobility anchoring protocol and forwarding > >> path and signaling protocol (maybe forwarding path protocol and > >> signaling protocol)l. > >> And maybe deployment models protocol which was in the charter but > >> somehow got dropped. > >> How is that going to happen? > > Do you plan to divide your solution into > > exposing mobility state protocol, > enhanced mobility anchoring protocol. > forwarding path protocol > signaling protocol ? > > That is the way things are going.
All of these things I think have areas of overlap with aspects of the AERO proposal. > Otherwise you are off track. I think the best I can do is represent the AERO proposal and speak to the areas where there is overlap. I think we have already established that AERO solves the tunnel MTU problem and that has applicability outside of just AERO. I am also feeding some of my correspondent capability discovery ideas to Alper and that again has wider applicability. The AERO NBMA model is being discussed in relation to the MIP/PMIP point-to-point model. Signaling based on plain old DHCPv6 and IPv6ND instead of specialized Mobility Headers has also been discussed. So, maybe I'm not seeing the forest for the trees but if you think I am off track what am I supposed to do about it? Complain, or continue to conduct a productive investigation as I am already doing? > >> Anyway these are my concerns, I could not attend Interim call #2, I > >> believe many people could not including Jouni. > > > > Jouni was able to attend the call. I was on the call and asked the > > question as to whether non-MIPv6/PMIPv6 solutions could be considered > > and the answer I got (I think from Jouni) was "possibly". > > > >> People should speak up, otherwise it appears like it is only my issue. > > > > AERO is a solution alternative that I would like to see taken under > > wider consideration within this domain. I think that is starting to > > happen through some of the recent list discussions, so others on the > > list should now be coming aware of it. I also plan to attend IETF91 > > where I would ask for another AERO presentation timeslot if it would > > please the wg and the chairs. > > > > So, it seems to me that I am already doing all I can. Do you think > > I should be doing more? > > I think you are trying to push your own solution I am conducting an investigation. Others have joined me in a friendly exchange of ideas. Is it the wrong approach? > and you think that you are effective in it. Which means that you think I am not effective in it? > I think DMM should see the big picture and everybody, including Ryuji, > Satoru and others should speak up. Sure, it would be good to hear from them. I have already specified a BGP-based distributed mobility management scheme in both the AERO spec and earlier in RFC6179. (I have read their draft; I have no way of knowing whether they have read my documents.) Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > Regards, > > Behcet > > > > > Thanks - Fred > > fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > > > >> Regards, > >> > >> Behcet > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Brian Haberman > >> <br...@innovationslab.net> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On 9/26/14 11:14 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> My question is we do that three four solution drafts and some of them > >> >> implemented. > >> >> What do we do with them? > >> > > >> > My expectation, as AD, is that the WG will assess the drafts presented > >> > by these teams for adoption. People's opinion of those drafts should > >> > not be influenced by the fact they were written by a team. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> My advice to those colleagues wishing to lead the design teams is to > >> >> please come up with your own solution and get into the race with > >> >> others. > >> > > >> > Race? > >> > > >> >> How come they can get the hat of DT lead and produce something and get > >> >> priority over others who worked so hard? > >> > > >> > First of all, the chairs are well within their right to appoint DT > >> > leads. They could have appointed all the other slots on the DT as well, > >> > but chose to ask for volunteers. > >> > > >> > I do not see anything in Jouni's note that indicates that a team's > >> > output gets any preferential treatment. The rules of the IETF prevent > >> > that. > >> > > >> > To re-enforce Jouni's last sentence... > >> > > >> >>> These documents will be equivalent to any individual produced I-D, > >> >>> though. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Brian > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > dmm mailing list > >> > dmm@ietf.org > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> dmm mailing list > >> dmm@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
