On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Thierry Ernst <[email protected]> wrote: > > The purpose of conference papers is to do research, so I don’t see how > conferences papers would help to do … maintenance of IETF RFCs. In addition > to bug fixes, MIPv6 and NEMO need to be progressed in the IETF hierarchy of > standards. There are issues and options to be discussed, probably even > extensions; a WG must host such work. My take is that dmm is the right > candidate WG for this to happen. >
I still don't see any statements from you on the real need or use. You talk as if even a BoF is needed, if yes that's what you should go for. Regards, Behcet > Regards, > Thierry Ernst. > > >> Le 11 janv. 2016 à 17:35, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
