On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Thierry Ernst <[email protected]> wrote: > > What are protocols you think no one uses ? > > MIPv6 and NEMOv6 needs maintenance, and probably more than than maintenance. >
Thierry, I meant PMIPv6 which was designed for operator networks. For MIPv6/NEMOv6, I think in Europe, some research based use is happening, to my knowledge at a very small scale. mip6 WG has been closed long time ago. I wish it were still open, that would be like in good old days. So conference papers and ISE is still my recipe. Regards, Behcet > Regards, > Thierry Ernst. > > >> Le 8 janv. 2016 à 20:48, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Jouni.nosmap <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Well one can always pursue ISE/AD sponsored track if one so feels like. >>> >>> Just saying there are options.. if one desires to go through the WG >>> process DMM has provisions for Mobile IPv6 protocol family maintenance work. >>> >> >> I started this thread by stating that: >> >> 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. >> >> No one objected to the first point. >> >> So what is the justification for maintenance? As I said before, >> charter items can be changed or they do not have to be used. >> >> Behcet >>> Jouni >>> >>> Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos.. >>> >>>> Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> kirjoitti 8.1.2016 kello 9.15: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> Why not ISE? For both MIPv6 and MIPv4. >>>> Of course you may not be able modify existing RFCs but just write it >>>> as a new draft and do not bother dmm where future protocol work is >>>> supposed to be done. >>>> >>>> Behcet >>>> >>>>> - 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 > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
