Hi Hitoshi,
you basically re-raise discussions again from more than two years ago:
We have given credit to previous work on the subject, which albeit never
has been more than a rough sketch.
The key fact is that draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast is
the only fully worked out solutions for Handover Acceleration so far,
and more importantly, it has been finished and ready for progress since
*2010*.
The typical goal of an IETF working group is to progress mature
documents that are of good technical quality and on charter ... not
doing so may may of course have political or personal reasons ...
Cheers,
Thomas
On 31.07.2012 22:01, Hitoshi Asaeda wrote:
Thomas,
We did have, apart from
draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast, several other
multicast handover solution drafts such as:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vonhugo-multimob-cxtp-extension-01
This draft basically uses the context transfer protocol (RFC4067) to
carry multicast state between ARs/MAGs. No full handover operations
have been specified.
It is because this draft inherits the basic operation from rfc4067 and
hence no need to repeat to write it. The main aim of this draft is to
define the message format for multicast context transfer with CXTP.
Of course, if something is missing and required to clarify in the
document, the authors will try to improve the document quality, I
believe.
At the unicast side, RFC4067 is a predecessor of the more advanced
Fast Handover Protocols does not apply to unicast handover
management.... IMO it does not make much sense to consider this rather
elementary approach any further.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04
This draft is - if you want so - a competitor to
draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast, but has never been
worked out (as have several other attempts in the past). If this
document was to be advanced, it had to rewrite (or copy ??) 80 % of
our draft, which is not a proper way to treat authorship.
The -00 version of draft-hui was published on June 29, 2009.
Your -00 draft was published on March 01, 2010.
(I just tell the fact.)
If we decide to accept more than one handover solution then we
probably need to consider all of them for possible WG adoption.
I don't understand your thinking here: it is perfectly normal that
there are competing approaches and the idea of the IETF discussion is
to have the best solution win. From the performance side, and from
protocol systematics (cooperation with unicast),
draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast is clearly the best
solution for fast handover operations - this comparison includes the
adopted draft "fast handover from transient binding".
If only one HO document is needed, then since this WG has already been
working for SIAL proposal, other documents (including yours) related
to HO are not needed, are they?
Furthermore I don't think all mobile operators in the world adpot only
FPMIPv6 as their business. So, if other idea is useful and technically
correct, documenting it is reasonable.
This is just my feeling.
Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
--
Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
