Hi Behcet, > -----Original Message----- > From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 12:51 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] Going forward with the DMM work items > > The point is that the way the charter is being interpreted is > we don't need solutions and we won't care if there are some, > > instead we will build the solution in five-six pieces from zero in DTs.
Yeah, I guess that would be a shame. If people took the time to truly understand the AERO virtual link model and its applicability to Internet mobility I don't think there would be a rush to go off and do things in pieces. But, I am socializing ideas and at least some people seem to be actively engaging with me. So, I'm not sure where complaining would help further the process. Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > Behcet > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Templin, Fred L > <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> wrote: > > 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
