<in a chair mode>
This thread is starting to sound like a broken record. We are chartered
to have the maintenance responsibility of Mobile IPv6 protocol family.
Once the chairs see absence of "maintenance oriented" documents that
responsibility will be terminated. Till then, if someone does not like
Mobile IPv6 protocol family work being done - just defer contributing.
That's the natural way of aging out topics in IETF. Enough of this for now!
Another data point to add here. To my (probably misguided?)
understanding PMIP6 has more live deployments than MIP6 today. My
understanding is that there are still operators running PMIP6 based
networks and some vendors developing networking gear with PMIP6 support.
- Jouni
1/11/2016, 9:47 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti:
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
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
