As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented extensions
of the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue within
IETF. Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here.
- Jouni
1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti:
Hi Alex, all,
My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it’s fine to work on MIP6
improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I totally agree.
And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and the related
suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard track. It has been
too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly right to do it.
So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the work, if not I
would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF.
Regards,
Thierry.
Le 8 janv. 2016 à 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu <[email protected]> a
écrit :
Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a écrit :
Behcet,
Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic
conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6
maintenance since these protocol families are already past their
prime time as “hot research topics". Looking at the existing charter
I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can
let MIPv4 finally rest in peace.
Jouni I can agree with you in general.
But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations very important
in some places including where I work.
They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly protocol and
implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the corrections
have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs.
Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations thrive where WG
cares little.
<provocative> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged and does not
respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed publicly?</provocative>.
Alex
- Jouni
On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Jouni, all,
Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no
one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find
their places in the conferences or journals.
Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as
well?
Regards,
Behcet
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jouni, all,
Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my
post-adoption call to the three drafts.
Carlos
On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
Folks,
The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed:
draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00
draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last
(draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of
supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough
interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the
authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out
the concerns raised during the adoption call.
For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of
the documents as soon as possible.
- Jouni & Dapeng
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
