from:"Mingui Zhang"

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

2015-12-09 Thread Mingui Zhang

Hi Pierrick,

> Do you mean that using DSL and LTE together is a BBF trademark? ... come
> on. :-).. anyway, I don't care about using another example... why not WiFi and
> LTE... is it ok? Is there any SDO which claims exclusivity on this use-case 
> ;-) ?

:-)

I would say "exclusivity" is exaggerated. The fact is that people already have 
that background knowledge so that they can easily get the impression that this 
is talking about the BBF use case. Also, the older versions did refer to WT-348 
use case. 

There are alternative examples, as you've already suggested, that can be used 
in the placeholder. It would be easier to use them. 

Thanks,
Mingui

> -Original Message-
> From: pierrick.se...@orange.com [mailto:pierrick.se...@orange.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 5:02 PM
> To: Mingui Zhang; dirk.von-h...@telekom.de; dmm@ietf.org
> Cc: alexandre.petre...@gmail.com
> Subject: RE: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation:
> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > -Message d'origine-
> > De : Mingui Zhang [mailto:zhangmin...@huawei.com] Envoyé : mercredi 9
> > décembre 2015 03:54 À : dirk.von-h...@telekom.de; SEITE Pierrick
> > IMT/OLN; dmm@ietf.org Cc : alexandre.petre...@gmail.com Objet : RE:
> > [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation: draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-
> > 02
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am not alone who find Figure 1 is misleading. Lots of people around
> > know 'DSL+LTE' is a peculiar use case of BBF WT-348.
> 
> Do you mean that using DSL and LTE together is a BBF trademark? ... come
> on. :-).. anyway, I don't care about using another example... why not WiFi and
> LTE... is it ok? Is there any SDO which claims exclusivity on this use-case 
> ;-) ?
> 
> Now that the draft intends to
> > provide a generic protocol extension for mobility management systems,
> > please drop that use case.
> >
> > Looking at the structure of the doc, Figure 1 is obviously a good
> > position to give a generic reference model rather than a specific
> > example, not to mention a misleading one.
> >
> > In the text,
> >" Flow-1,2 and 3 are distributed either on
> >Tunnel-1 (over LTE) or Tunnel-2 (ober DSL), while Flow-4 is spread on
> >both Tunnel-1 and 2. "
> > s/ober/over/
> > So, this indicates the doc aims to support both per-flow and
> > per-packet traffic distribution. This point could be explicitly stated.
> >
> 
> It is stated on section 3.2. but, you are right, it is maybe worth to clarify 
> this in
> the introduction as well.
> 
> 
> > In the figure,
> > s/Flow0=-4/ Flow-4 /
> >
> > I guess authors would produce an updated version to address the issues
> > we've found.
> >
> 
> Yes of course. Thanks for the comments.
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Mingui
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: dirk.von-h...@telekom.de [mailto:dirk.von-h...@telekom.de]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 6:06 PM
> > > To: pierrick.se...@orange.com; dmm@ietf.org
> > > Cc: alexandre.petre...@gmail.com
> > > Subject: RE: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation:
> > > draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
> > >
> > > Hi Pierrick,
> > > Thank you for the clarification!
> > > May I recommend then to exchange also the multiple occurrences of RG
> > > in the draft text by - why not MAG?
> > >
> > > Your approach which I think of as mainly opting towards future
> > > mobility management systems with multiple connections (e.g.
> > > backhauling of vehicular/nomadic access nodes or MRs) otherwise
> > > might be interpreted in a misleading direction ...
> > >
> > > Having said this I also would appreciate to replace the expression
> > > 'hybrid' by 'multi-link' or 'multi-connected'. For an BBF-related
> > > aggregated access bundling often called 'hybrid access' (see e.g.
> > > BANANA activity) there are - as Mingui already pointed out - other
> > > solution proposals available which consider in detail the specific 
> > > existing
> gaps.
> > >
> > > IMHO I would also opting to replace the use case DSL+LTE by a more
> > > general one e.g. multiple wireless and cellular links as WiFi+LTE or
> > > LTE(provided by operator x) + LTE(provided by operator y) or even
> > > LTE+future
> > 5G air interface ...
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot!
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > > Dirk
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: dmm [mailto:dmm

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

2015-12-08 Thread Mingui Zhang

Hi,

I am not alone who find Figure 1 is misleading. Lots of people around know 
'DSL+LTE' is a peculiar use case of BBF WT-348. Now that the draft intends to 
provide a generic protocol extension for mobility management systems, please 
drop that use case. 

Looking at the structure of the doc, Figure 1 is obviously a good position to 
give a generic reference model rather than a specific example, not to mention a 
misleading one. 

In the text, 
   " Flow-1,2 and 3 are distributed either on
   Tunnel-1 (over LTE) or Tunnel-2 (ober DSL), while Flow-4 is spread on
   both Tunnel-1 and 2. "
s/ober/over/
So, this indicates the doc aims to support both per-flow and per-packet traffic 
distribution. This point could be explicitly stated. 

In the figure,
s/Flow0=-4/ Flow-4 /

I guess authors would produce an updated version to address the issues we've 
found.

Thanks,
Mingui

> -Original Message-
> From: dirk.von-h...@telekom.de [mailto:dirk.von-h...@telekom.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 6:06 PM
> To: pierrick.se...@orange.com; dmm@ietf.org
> Cc: alexandre.petre...@gmail.com
> Subject: RE: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation:
> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
> 
> Hi Pierrick,
> Thank you for the clarification!
> May I recommend then to exchange also the multiple occurrences of RG in the
> draft text by - why not MAG?
> 
> Your approach which I think of as mainly opting towards future mobility
> management systems with multiple connections (e.g. backhauling of
> vehicular/nomadic access nodes or MRs) otherwise might be interpreted in a
> misleading direction ...
> 
> Having said this I also would appreciate to replace the expression 'hybrid' by
> 'multi-link' or 'multi-connected'. For an BBF-related aggregated access 
> bundling
> often called 'hybrid access' (see e.g. BANANA activity) there are - as Mingui
> already pointed out - other solution proposals available which consider in 
> detail
> the specific existing gaps.
> 
> IMHO I would also opting to replace the use case DSL+LTE by a more general
> one e.g. multiple wireless and cellular links as WiFi+LTE or LTE(provided by
> operator x) + LTE(provided by operator y) or even LTE+future 5G air interface 
> ...
> ;-)
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> Best Regards
> Dirk
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> pierrick.se...@orange.com
> Sent: Freitag, 4. Dezember 2015 12:07
> To: Alexandre Petrescu; dmm
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation:
> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
> 
> Good point... moreover, "rg" means nothing here...
> 
> > -Message d'origine-
> > De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Alexandre
> > Petrescu Envoyé : vendredi 4 décembre 2015 12:02 À : dmm Objet : Re:
> > [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation: draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-
> > 02
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I support adoption.
> >
> > One little note: the -rg- in filename makes think of Research Group.
> > It would make sense to change the filename to avoid the use of -rg-, if 
> > it's not
> too complicated.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > Le 25/11/2015 17:22, Dapeng Liu a écrit :
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, 
> exploites ou
> copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le
> signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les 
> messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute
> responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used
> or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
> this
> message and its

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

2015-12-06 Thread Mingui Zhang

 10:34 AM, Jong-Hyouk Lee
> > > <jonghy...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > No, the extension is for the RG, i.e. Residential Gateway which is a
> > > broadband or fixed network element.
> > >
> > >
> > > > to register more than one PCoA
> > > > to the LMA. It is definitely useful for a multihomed environment.
> > >
> > > Why would a MAG be multihomed? I am not aware of any proposals that
> > > e..g  the serving gateway in 3GPP network where MAG is placed should
> > > be
> > multihomed.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Behcet
> > > >  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 <zhangmin...@huawei.com>
> > 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
> > > > DSL+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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > ___

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

2015-11-26 Thread Mingui Zhang

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





--

--
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

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

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

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

4 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information