Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

From: "Damic, Damjan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:35:41 +0100

Hello to all,

My vote is in favor of draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 as the WG
document.

Reasoning:
At this stage draft-sgundave is quite extensive and has been fairly
consolidated upon comments from numerous discussion participants.
As such, it looks like a more suitable document to cover the PMIP6
fundamentals.
But, as it has been mentioned already, the challenge for the IETF-68
meeting probably lies in determining the exact scope of the basic PMIP6
specification. My belief is that the WG should agree on the mandated
features (either reducing or extending the draft-sgundave), leaving
space for adequate functional extensions. More than few of such drafts
are already available.

On the other hand, draft-singh is more focused, covering its distributed
signalling/data concept and related security issues. Such scenario might
be applicable in some environments, so maybe shouldn't be a priori
precluded by the basic PMIP6 specification.

Kind regards,
Damjan

>Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:33:42 -0800
>From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption
>To: <[email-masked]>
>
>All,
>This is a consensus call to pick a WG document for PMIPv6. Please
>indicate your preference in using draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 or
>draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01 as a starting point for the WG document.
>Please note that any document chosen as the WG document will have to
>reflect WG consensus - so, the current version need not be considered
>final by any means. If you think one or both these documents still have
>any major open issues, please state those issues on the list as well. 
>
>Please send an email stating your preference by 23th March, 
>2007. If you
>don't have an adequate idea of the drafts, you may wait to see the
>presentation of the drafts at the NETLMM meeting in Prague before you
>respond to this call. 
>
>Thanks,
>The Chairs
>

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:50:39 +0100

> As such, it looks like a more suitable document to cover the PMIP6

Let me point that it covers much more than 'fundamentals'.  It covers 
IPv4 and IPv4 is not a fundamental part of PMIPv6.

> space for adequate functional extensions. More than few of such drafts

I'm talking about the two _basic_ PMIPv6 proposals which are 
draft-sgundave and draft-singh.  There's no other PMIPv6 basic proposal. 
  Do you think there's another base PMIPv6 proposal?  If there is, we 
should consider it right away.

> precluded by the basic PMIP6 specification.

I agree, draft-sgundave shouldn't preclude the draft-singh part.  One 
example is this separation from the AR, so the Client MIP is on another 
machine than the AR.  A possible solution to that is to use Alt CoA. 
Where would you like this Alt CoA description to happen, in the base 
draft or in an extension draft?

What happens if the extension draft requires the use of Alt CoA and the 
base draft says nothing at all about it.  Isn't this a way of 'precluding'?

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________