Subject: Re: [MEXT] [OFFLIST] consensus call on dhaad (fwd)

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:18:36 -0800 (PST)

Charlie's response on DHAAD deprecation issue.
Also, the purpose of 3775-bis is primarily to fix some
bugs and not a major rewrite of the spec. In that sense,
we dont have the ability or charter to make such a
fundamental change.

Sri

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:58:59 -0800
From: Charles E. Perkins <[email-masked]>
To: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [OFFLIST] consensus call on dhaad (fwd)

Hello Sri,

Actually, I am neutral on this point.  I don't think
it matters whether or not it's in the spec, unless
people are using it.  And, I think that if there are
people using it, that will present a very strong
reason for retaining it.  If, on the other hand, no
one is using it or wants to use it, then we should take
it out or perhaps republish it as a separate document.

My previous argument for leaving it in, was just
that taking it out would exceed the original
purpose that was proposed for rfc3775bis.

You can forward this to the list if you see fit,
or to Jari.

Regards,
Charlie P.

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

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:25:12 -0800 (PST)

(resend, fixing the subject line)

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:18:14 +0100

With respect to the scope of the change, i think that this change is in 
the limit of what we can do with the charter.
So, because of this, we have discussed this with our AD and he approved 
to try this.
However, the bar for removing dhaad at this point is high i.e. we need 
more than rough consensus but some strong consensus to take this decision.
This is the goal of this poll. Understand how strong is the consensus in 
this issue.
Now,  concerning Charlie's comments, i do agree with Charlie that if 
people are _using_ it, it is an importnat issue to be considered. That 
is different from being implemented (which is hat you brought up in you 
last email)
If there is any people that are using this feature, please provide feedback.

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 11:03:58 -0800 (PST)

Hi Marcelo,

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> With respect to the scope of the change, i think that this change is in the 
> limit of what we can do with the charter.
> So, because of this, we have discussed this with our AD and he approved to 
> try this.
> However, the bar for removing dhaad at this point is high i.e. we need more 
> than rough consensus but some strong consensus to take this decision.
> This is the goal of this poll. Understand how strong is the consensus in this 
> issue.
> Now,  concerning Charlie's comments, i do agree with Charlie that if people 
> are _using_ it, it is an importnat issue to be considered. That is different 
> from being implemented (which is hat you brought up in you last email)

3775-bis was added to the charter primarily with the note that there
are some minor bugs that were identified and should be fixed. It never
appeared to me *atleast* that this is for making functional/architectural
changes. Case and point, this specific change has impact on other
features within the draft, also on RFC-3963 and RFC-4295. Without plans
to update the other specs, the change of this magnitude cannot be within
the scope of 3775-bis.

W.r.t your comments on how many customers are using that feature, we
have released product over 3 years and that supports that feature.
We have this is in use for certain Govt/Military applications and
trials in many places. So, its in use.

Regards
Sri

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:45:32 +0100

Sri Gundavelli escribió:
>> With respect to the scope of the change, i think that this change is 
>> in the limit of what we can do with the charter.
>> So, because of this, we have discussed this with our AD and he 
>> approved to try this.
>> However, the bar for removing dhaad at this point is high i.e. we 
>> need more than rough consensus but some strong consensus to take this 
>> decision.
>> This is the goal of this poll. Understand how strong is the consensus 
>> in this issue.
>> people are _using_ it, it is an importnat issue to be considered. 
>> That is different from being implemented (which is hat you brought up 
>> in you last email)
I have addressed this issue already, but here we go again

The scope fo the work of rfc3775 bis is minor changes indeed.
This particular issue can be considered border line for this, so for 
this reason we have consulted our AD and he agreed we can have this 
disucssion. I am not sure what else do you need.

With respect to the rest of the specs, as i mentioned already, this is a 
process. If we decide to remove one feature, when the other specs are 
updated, they need to reflect that 8see the case of the deprecation of 
site local addresses, it had an impact in many rrfcs which are still 
being updated)
> trials in many places. So, its in use.
right, any deployment that i can mention to all the people that ask me 
where mip is being widely used?

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:22:06 +0100

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> people are _using_ it, it is an important issue to be considered. 
>  in you last email) If there is any people that are using this 
> feature, please provide feedback.

Marcelo, may I ask you to clarify what do you mean by the distinction
between a feature being implemented and being used by some people?  And
as a matter of example, can we qualify a feature as being used if it's
specified by other SDO?  Or by another RFC?  Or by people in the street
discovery their Home Agents?

As a matter of example, if we say that feature X is used by SDO - does
it mean it's used by people?  And if we say that feature Y is used by
RFC z - does it mean it's used by people?

I _think_ DHAAD is not used by 3gpp-related SDOs, and in that sense we
could, probably, say DHAAD is not used by people.  DHAAD _is_ used by
rfc3963 and in that sense we may say it is used by people.  DHAAD is not
used by people in the streets to discover their HAs in that final sense
we may say it is not used by people.

I'm just trying to understand what you mean, thank you,

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:48:20 +0100

Alex,

Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
> between a feature being implemented and being used by some people?

sure
Implemented is that code exists
Used by is that you actually people out there that they are using it 
(for example the IPv4 protocol, SMTP protoocol, POP3 protocol, IMAP)

>   And
> specified by other SDO?
no, that is not what i called used by. (if the standards defined by 
these other SDOs are deployed and used by people, then yes, but this is 
different) If we have another SDO that has defined a std based on a 
feature defiend in a rfc, but noone is using that in any case, this is 
not what i call used by someone.

However, i do agree that if another sdos relies in a feature that we are 
considering to deprecate, we should take that into account as well (but 
not in the used by someone category)

> Or by another RFC?
No, i guess it applies to the same case than below, only that this is 
much more transaprent, cause we can easily grasp that

>   Or by people in the street
right!

> I'm just trying to understand what you mean, thank you,
bottom line is that if a feature, like the IPv4 protocol, is used by a 
bunch of people this is very strong signal that the feature is useful.

hope this is clear now

regards, marcelo