Re: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation: draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params

[John Kaippallimalil]

Hi,
I’ve read the draft and think that it is ready for adoption.

PS: I already supported the call for adoption in IETF 94 meeting. 

BR,
John



From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dapeng Liu
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 10:03 AM
To: dmm
Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation: 
draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params

Hello all,

In IETF94, we initiated the call for adoption for the draft:
draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params:  
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params
Seems have got sufficient support during the meeting. We'd like to confirm the 
call for adoption in the mailing list for 2 weeks.

Please send your opinion and comments to the list before December 9.


Thanks,
--
Best Regards,
Dapeng&Jouni



-- 

--
Best Regards,
Dapeng Liu
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation: draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02

[Jong-Hyouk Lee]

Hi all

I support the adoption of this draft as a WG draft even with the concerns 
pointed by Mingui. This draft has a merit of the introduction of the generic 
protocol extension allowing a multihomed MAG to register more than one PCoA to 
the LMA. It is definitely useful for a multihomed environment. Authors may 
update this draft to address Mingui’s comments if needed. 

J.
--
Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random
Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University

#email: jonghy...@gmail.com
#webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon

> On Nov 26, 2015, at 5:00 PM, Mingui Zhang  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
> I remember it was suggested to remove DSL, “Hybrid Access”, etc, and the 
> suggestion was acknowledged. We haven’t seen an updated version yet. It is 
> not ready to be adopted, I think. 
>  
> I have read the draft. I found the scope greatly shrinked from the 01 to 02. 
> I guess the draft wants to fight through by providing a more generic protocol 
> extension, while awaiting for real use cases. And, Hybrid Access could be 
> treated as a potential use case (Actually, the DSL+LTE scenario is now 
> intentionally inherited from the 00 version as a use case.).  If I guess 
> right, I don’t think it’s a good starting point since it only covers a 
> fragment of a possible solution. Besides the care of addresses, there are 
> many other gaps that have not been touched: per-packet traffic classification 
> and recombination, performance measurement, the bypass requirement, etc. From 
> the draft, we cannot figure out a clear architectural overview. Section 3 
> doesn’t help much.
>  
> Hence, I oppose its adoption.
>  
> Thanks,
> Mingui
>  
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dapeng Liu
> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 12:22 AM
> To: dmm
> Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation: 
> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
>  
> Hello all,
>  
> In IETF94, we initiated the call for adoption for the draft:
> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 
> :  
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 
> 
> Seems have got sufficient support during the meeting. We'd like to confirm 
> the call for adoption in the mailing list for 2 weeks.
> Please send your opinion and comments to the list before December 9.
>  
>  
> Thanks,
> --
> Best Regards,
> Dapeng&Jouni
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> --
> Best Regards,
> Dapeng Liu
> ___
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm