On 4/19/2013 1:44 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Folks,
This poll is not a WG poll. We have not decided on such a poll in
Orlando, please check the minutes.
I guess WG Poll is not the right title. It's not a formal poll. It's
just the author trying to get input from the WG.
We have 4 WG drafts and each draft has so many features/options. How
would we cope with the situation if we had a poll on each?
The author on his own has posted the mail with his own formulation of
the questions. I repeat this is not a WG poll.
My recommendation to WG is to review the WG drafts and help the authors
improve the drafts.
Right, and as part of this, we need to provide our views on this
important issue, so that we have a draft reflecting the WGs opinions.
I think this was the main outstanding issue from our discussion in Orlando.
Stig
Regards,
Behcet
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Rahman, Akbar
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Hi Stig/Carlos,
I vote ofr Stig's proposal of making the flag A mechanism optional
but keeping it in the I-D (option 3). My only caveat would be if
this requires a lot of work on the part of the Authors to update the
I-D as I think we should wrap up this document sooner rather than
later. If Option 3 requires too much documentation effort then I
vote for option 2.
Akbar
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Stig Venaas
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 2:36 PM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [multimob] WG Poll about the inclusion or not of flag A
mechanism in draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization
It would be great to get input from more people in the WG on this issue.
Stig
On 4/10/2013 10:48 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm responding here with my personal view, and hopefully also the
same
> as I was saying in the meeting.
>
> On 4/10/2013 12:49 AM, LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> After the Orlando meeting discussions on the flag A mechanism
described
>> in draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-02 for mitigating the
>> internal signaling within the network in case of reactive
handover, we
>> would like to consult WG members about your preference:
>>
>> Option 1.- To include the flag A mechanism as an integral (and
>> mandatory) part of the solution, as described in the draft today.
>>
>> Option 2.- To consider the flag A mechanism as an option to reduce
>> signaling in the core, then removing the reference to this mechanism
>> from the draft. The final document would consider that the LMA
always
>> queries the pMAG by default, but mentioning that some mechanism
>> (out-of-scope) could be used to reduce this signaling (by
avoiding to
>> query the pMAG).
>
> Wouldn't a 3rd option be to keep it in the draft, but not make the A
> flag mandatory to implement/enable? I think that may require
additional
> work though, because you may need to know whether the A flag is being
> used. Basically you need to know that A flag not set, doesn't
mean that
> there is no subscription when A-flag support isn't enabled.
>
> My concern is that the A-flag mechanism may not be worth the
effort, or
> even worse, if clients often switch between having multicast
> subscriptions and not (basically that A is frequently often updated).
> If the A flag is mostly stable, then I think it is useful.
>
> So at least my thinking is that unless we know with some
certainty what
> the usage pattern is, then it is better to make it optional. If
we agree
> on making it optional, then the question is whether we still want
it in
> this document (option 2 or 3).
>
> Hope we can get the input of several people in the group and try to
> figure out what the best option is.
>
> Stig
>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Luis
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Luis M. Contreras
>>
>> Technology / Global CTO / Telefónica
>>
>> Efficiency Projects / Telefónica I+D
>>
>> Distrito Telefónica, Edificio Sur 3, Planta 3
>>
>> 28050 Madrid
>>
>> España / Spain
>>
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede
consultar
>> nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en
el enlace
>> situado más abajo.
>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only
send and
>> receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
>> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> multimob mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> multimob mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
