> For me (as an individual contributor) the I-D gives a standard way to >register multiple transport connections/tunnels between a MAG and a LMA, potentially over different technologies (wired, wireless, ..) on the transport network side without needing to rely on engineering solutions
Ack. MAG's ability to register multiple IP transport end points is a basic protocol semantic which is always present in enterprise architectures. Problem with this thread it confuses the hell out of every thing. You cannot explain and you cannot have a meaningful conversation. Pierrick gave up and now I give up. But, this is not new; WG after WG, same folks and same pattern. Sri On 12/3/15 11:38 AM, "dmm on behalf of Jouni Korhonen" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >Behcet, > >12/3/2015, 10:43 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti: >> Hi Jouni, >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> >>wrote: >>> Behcet, >>> >>> 12/2/2015, 11:02 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti: >>>> >>>> Hi Jouni, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Jouni Korhonen >>>><[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As an individual contributor I support the adoption of this I-D. >>>>>MCoA is >>>>> a >>>>> feature that we still lack.. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Are you sure? >>>> >>>> MCoA is solved in Netext Flow Mobility draft, >>>> >>>> draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-14 >>>> >>>> is the latest draft. >>> >>> >>> Sorry for my improper wording regarding which part of the MCoA I >>>meant. I >>> don't see how draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-14 would handle the >>>case of >>> registration when the Proxy-CoAs are from the same MAG. >> >> I wonder why would that be needed? >> MN doesn't need it. >> So this draft seems to be addressing a non-problem. > >I'll let the WG to determine whether the feature is needed or not. > >For me (as an individual contributor) the I-D gives a standard way to >register multiple transport connections/tunnels between a MAG and a LMA, >potentially over different technologies (wired, wireless, ..) on the >transport network side without needing to rely on engineering solutions >to achieve the same (yes - I could do a somewhat similar solution e.g. >using MPLS but that would then be loaded with all kinds of assumptions >that may or may not work in multi vendor and cross operator environment). > >- JOuni > >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >>> The netext draft >>> specifically states Proxy-CoAs are from different MAGs. >>> >>> But it was a good thing you brought this up. The two I-Ds need to be in >>> sync. >>> >>>> >>>> BTW there was an issue in WG adoption call in IETF 93 in Yokohama. The >>> >>> >>> IETF 94 I presume.. AFAIR we did not ask for adoption in IETF 93. >>> >>>> chair asked only those who accept. The chair unfortunately did not ask >>>> those who oppose. >>>> >>>> As you know, if the chair wishes to ask a single question then the >>>> right one is any opposes. >>> >>> >>> Obviously you are right here but I cannot really comment on this what >>> happened in Yokohama since I was not on site or not even participating >>> remotely. >>> >>> Anyway, all adoption calls are confirmed on the mailing list and the >>>"sense >>> of the room" during the meeting merely serves as informative quidance >>>for >>> chairs. >>> >>> - Jouni >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Behcet >>>>> >>>>> The document itself still needs quite a bit of work. For example, I >>>>> wonder >>>>> if the caption for Figure 2 is correct. Also, Section 4.1. option >>>>>fiels >>>>> descriptions are somewhat broken it seems. And so on multiple small >>>>>nits >>>>> like unexpanded acronyms etc. However, these are mainly editorials. I >>>>> have >>>>> no problem with the technical solution. >>>>> >>>>> - Jouni >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 11/25/2015, 8:22 AM, Dapeng Liu kirjoitti: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>> >>>>>> In IETF94, we initiated the call for adoption for the draft: >>>>>> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02>: >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>> Seems have got sufficient support during the meeting. We'd like to >>>>>> confirm the call for adoption in the mailing list for 2 weeks. >>>>>> Please send your opinion and comments to the list before December 9. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> ------ >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> Dapeng&Jouni >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> ------ >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> Dapeng Liu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> dmm mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> dmm mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > >_______________________________________________ >dmm mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
