Subject: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:09:09 +0200

Dear all,
I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list.
Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/?

Best regards
Dirk

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von Hidetoshi Yokota
Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12
An: [email-masked]
Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81

Hi Julien and all,

Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of
"Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to
discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got
consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting
will be needed.

Please take a look at the following I-D:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt

Thanks in advance for your support,
--
Hidetoshi

(2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote:
> Folks,
>
> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require
> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec.
>
> --julien&  marcelo
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:29:03 -0700

Dirk and Hidetoshi,

Face to face meeting time should IMHO primarily be used to resolve
issues that cannot be resolved on the WG mailing list. As of now I do
not see any, hence the absence of a MEXT WG meeting.

Best,

--julien

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM,  <[email-masked]> wrote:
> dmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:53:25 +0900

Hi Julien,

WG mailing list is the base of the discussion, but sometimes it takes 
very long time to proceed, by which it loses timeliness. 
Network-initiated flow mobility or Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) 
come from urgent needs and IETF has the reputation of responding to such 
needs in a timely manner. F2F meeting is generally more efficient than 
ML discussion and effective for the chairs to progress the standards 
process. I believe that ML discussion and F2F meeting are the two wheels 
of moving I-Ds forward and we shouldn't miss the opportunity of F2F 
meetings, which happen only three times in a year.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

(2011/07/06 0:29), Julien Laganier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM,<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>> Dear all,

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:31:55 -0700

Hidetoshi,

If WG mailing list on a given topic doesn' t happen in a timely
fashion, I would suggest that either people are not interested in the
topic, or it's not urgent to them.  If a topic isn't urgent for
people, then IMHO giving them face-to-face time isn't urgent either.

--julien

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> WG mailing list is the base of the discussion, but sometimes it takes very
> long time to proceed, by which it loses timeliness. Network-initiated flow
> mobility or Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) come from urgent needs and
> IETF has the reputation of responding to such needs in a timely manner. F2F
> meeting is generally more efficient than ML discussion and effective for the
> chairs to progress the standards process. I believe that ML discussion and
> F2F meeting are the two wheels of moving I-Ds forward and we shouldn't miss
> the opportunity of F2F meetings, which happen only three times in a year.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Hidetoshi
>
>>> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need
>>> more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and
>>> potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list.

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 09:27:45 +0900

Hi Julien,

WG mailing list sometimes leads to a lengthy discussion, which creates 
misunderstandings and frustration that could be avoided if it was 
discussed in a F2F meeting. Urgency is one important aspect but mutual 
understanding is another good aspect of F2F meeting. It is pity to miss 
such a precious opportunity for nothing in spite of a couple of very 
interesting I-Ds awaiting a good discussion...

-- 
Hidetoshi

(2011/07/06 23:31), Julien Laganier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Hidetoshi Yokota<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>> Hi Julien,
>>

---

From: Ashutosh Dutta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:02:05 -0400

Hi Julien, I agree with Yokota-san that face-to-face discussion helps  
a lot to avoid confusion and clarify the technical details. We should  
encourage face-to-face discussion as much as possible for the  
technical details.

Regards
Ashutosh

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 08:16:04 +0200

Hi,

below...

El 07/07/11 02:27, Hidetoshi Yokota escribió:
> discussed in a F2F meeting.
i agree
please point out the lenghty discussion that ocurred in the mext ml 
since the last IETF meeting that deserves f2f time to clarify the 
misunderstanding that were generated.

> Urgency is one important aspect but mutual understanding is another 
> good aspect of F2F meeting. It is pity to miss such a precious 
> opportunity for nothing in spite of a couple of very interesting I-Ds 
> awaiting a good discussion...
>
Right, but having a meeting to discuss issues that people not care 
enough to even comment in the ml, seems like a waste of time

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:55:59 +0900

Hi Marcelo,

Since the agenda for IETF 81 has been fixed and the MEXT WG is not
scheduled there, it won't mean much whatever I say. My comment was
intended to describe the importance of a F2F meeting. I'll try to
encourage the discussion on the ML.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 17:01:41 -0700

Hello folks,

I agree that we should have a face-to-face meeting.
Perhaps we can reserve one of the meeting rooms during
a time when it is not in use, or else schedule a
meeting in the evening somewhere.

There are several DMM drafts of interest which
would benefit from discussion.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:46:41 +0200

> would benefit from discussion.

Why don't you start by reading the drafts and commenting them in the ml?

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 09:44:15 +0000

Hi Dirk, Hi Alexandru

I am also interested in having a f2f meeting in Quebec to discuss
vehicular topics!

As I already understood, this meeting does not need to be seen as a MEXT
meeting.

Best regards,
Georgios

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:14:58 -0700

Hello folks,

I think that vehicular networking discussions could be
at least initiated in the [manet] working group.
AODV and OLSR have been adapted for vehicular, and
much more could be done there.  Mesh has also been
discussed in [manet].

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 7/9/2011 2:44 AM, Georgios Karagiannis wrote:
> On 7/4/2011, "[email-masked]"<[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 05:56:57 +0000

Hi Charlie

Thanks for the information!

Best regards,
Georgios

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:53:54 +0900

Hi Charlie and all,

I support your proposal. We already have a couple of interesting MEXT
related topics such as:

o DMM,
o vehicular communications, and
o network-initiated flow mobility.

Since there are multiple I-Ds on these topics, we should also discuss
how to move forward.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:22:44 +0200

Dear all,

I'm not sure that any WG is more relevant than any other.

A number of WGs are concerned with issues related to vehicular networks. 
When it comes to vehicular adhoc routing protocol, yes, MANET is more 
relevant. When it comes to session continuity and NEMO RO, MEXT is more 
relevant. But there are yet other issues for which other WGs are 
relevant too.

There will be a day where IETF will need a joint WG session to discuss 
all issues related to Cooperative ITS (Cooperative Intelligent Transport 
Systems) at large, but we need a critical mass, which we don't have 
reached yet. There is SDOs focused on Cooperative ITS (ETSI TC ITS, ISO 
TC 204, ISO TC22) who are integrating and extending protocols defined by 
the IETF (all the IPv6 protocol suite, mobility support protocols, etc.) 
but they are not considering involvement at the IETF as a priority (yet) 
(this is why I'm not pushing for anything at the IETF right now, because 
it could be counter-productive).

Regards,
Thierry Ernst.

On 09/07/11 17:14, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>>> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should 
>>> need more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of 
>>> MEXT and potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex 
>>> on this list.

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:17:25 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Marcelo,
Already many discussions happened on dmm list, doesn't that count?

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:57:28 +0200

Hi,

we are probably following different mailing lists i guess... what 
discussion are you referring to?

Please point out any technical discussion (people reading reviewing and 
commenting draft of other people and these type of things...)

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:43:56 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Marcelo,

DMM mail archive at:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/

has the record.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:43:38 +0200

So, we are following a different mailing list!

Please discuss mext related topics in the mext ml.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:47:44 +0000

DMM was approved as part of the MEXT charter. Why is there a separate discussion list?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext marcelo bagnulo braun
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:44 PM
To: Behcet Sarikaya
Cc: Behcet Sarikaya; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81

El 11/07/11 20:43, Behcet Sarikaya escribió:
>> Please point out any technical  discussion (people reading reviewing 
>> and commenting draft of other people  and these type of things...)
>>
>> Regards, marcelo
>>
>>
>>>>>    There  are several DMM drafts of interest which would benefit  
>>>>> from  discussion.
>>>>>

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:52:12 +0200

exactly!

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:59:44 -0700 (PDT)

> DMM was approved as part of the MEXT charter. Why is there a separate  

Ask this to Charlie.

Anyways, the discussion later on moved to the mext list.
BTW Julien is on dmm list :-)

Behcet

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:01:42 -0700

> BTW Julien is on dmm list :-)

Yes, I subscribed, aongst other things to make it possible to tell
people on that other list (DMM) that MEXT topics should IMHO be
discussed on the MEXT mailing list if people are expecting to progress
work that impact MEXT protocols:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg00087.html

--julien