Subject: [Mip4] WG adoption call on draft-patel-mobileip-experimental-messages-02.txt

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:26:05 +0100

This is a call to assess the support in the workgroup for adoption
of "draft-patel-mobileip-experimental-messages-02.txt" as a workgroup
document with the purpose of standardising experimental messages,
extensions and error codes for MIP v4. 

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-patel-mobileip-experimental-messages-02.txt

If you have no comments on the draft at this time, and supports its
adoption, simply respond with a line containing something like

 "I support the adoption of this document as a workgroup document"

If you have no comments on the draft at this time, but *don't* supports
its adoption, simply respond with a line containing something like

 "I don't support the adoption of this document as a workgroup document"

If you have comments, please use a line like one of the two quoted
above, and supplement this with your comments.

	Regards,

		Henrik

---

From: "Espen Klovning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:19:04 -0500

We need a better system to handle experimental messages/codes. Recent
experiences with repeated renumbering have been annoying. The current draft
is an attempt to handle that. My only concern is that the subtype allocation
needs some thought to avoid the same problem all over again.

espen
Espen Klovning
Birdstep Technology ASA

-- 
Mip4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4

---

From: Yoshiyuki Tsuda <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:25:28 -0800

I think, this I-D is quite useful, because:
- it will provide a way to do some MIP message experiments by MIP
  standard-based devices.
- It enables those vendors which don't have any specific vendor IDs
  to do some MIP extension experiments.

Thanks.
-Yoshi

Yoshiyuki Tsuda
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corporation

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:39:08 +0100

> needs some thought to avoid the same problem all over again.

That's a good point. So maybe we should predefine one or two numbers out of
all mip v4 subtype ranges as experimental for that subtype, too?

	Henrik

---

From: Alpesh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:50:22 -0800

Agreed. Probably, we can reserve a number in higher range - 254 or 255 as
experimental for all extensions defined in "Long Extension Format" as
specified in 1.10 of RFC 3344?

-a

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:00:36 +0100

Hi Alpesh,

> specified in 1.10 of RFC 3344?

Any reason to limit this to subtypes of the long extension format,
rather than applying it to all extensions which define subtypes?

	Henrik

---

From: Alpesh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:10:40 -0800

Henrik -

No specific reason - just forgot to confirm that the short extension format
defined in section 1.11 of rfc3344 also defines sub-types. We can reserve
a number there as well.

There are too many experimental elements in the title (already
3 and this potential 4th). Maybe we can just have the title changed to
*-experimental-elements-* ??

Thanks for pointing it out.
-a

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:25:20 +0100

> defined in section 1.11 of rfc3344 also defines sub-types. We can reserve

Ok. Maybe even better might be to say that any extensions with
sub-type numbers, such as for instance extensions according to
rfc 3344 section 1.10 and 1.11, have sub-type number so-and-so
reserved as experimental?

> *-experimental-elements-* ??

What about "Experimental Numbers for Mobile IPv4" ?

	Henrik

---

From: Alpesh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:42:37 -0800

Henrik -

Okay, we will add a new section with the text to keep a specific sub-type
number reserved for current and future extensions.

Thx
-a

---

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:56:50 -0600

I think we should be careful here; I don't see a good way to define
the term "subtype" unless we are referring to the specific extension
formats identified in RFC 3344 (long and short).  So I would hope you
can be explicit about the subtype fields instead of making a statement
like:

 > >any extensions with

-Pete

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:07:17 +0100

>  > >reserved as experimental?

Seems you're a bit more cautious than me here, but I can go with this,
too.

	Best,
		Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:31:11 +0100

<chair hat off>

>  "I support the adoption of this document as a workgroup document"

I can see the use for this document, and supports its adoption.

Having experimental numbers makes sense to me, and I especially
hope it will help avoid extension number collisions in the future.

Thanks Alpesh and Kent for writing this up.

	Henrik

</chair hat off>

---

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:27:56 -0600

Looking back over the responses received to date, it looks like we
have seen several voices in favor of adopting this item and not a
single WG member has spoken up in opposition.  So, I think it's fair
to say that a consensus exists for adopting this item.

There was some constructive discussion around the addition of an
experimental subtype code, which I think can be handled in due course
by the working group.  Alpesh, go ahead and submit the current version
as draft-ietf-mip4-experimental-messages-00.txt.

-Pete