Subject: [DMM] conclusion of adoption calls

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:32:07 -0800

Folks,

The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed:
	draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00
	draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03
	draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02

The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last (draft-seita-*) 
received few concerns but the number of supporters was enough to 
convince the chairs there is enough interest and support to work on it. 
The chairs encourage the authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention 
and work out the concerns raised during the adoption call.

For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of the 
documents as soon as possible.

- Jouni & Dapeng

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:45:02 +0100

Hi Jouni, all,

Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my post-adoption
call to the three drafts.

Carlos

On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:46:02 -0600

Hi Jouni, all,

Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no one uses?
For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find their places in
the conferences or journals.

Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as well?

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:56:59 +0000

Beat the protocol any time things don¹t go our way.

Published September 14, 2015

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-nvo3-vmm-dmm-pmip-07.txt

I wonder why ? Academic interest ?

On 12/21/15, 9:46 AM, "dmm on behalf of Behcet Sarikaya"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:28:32 -0600

> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-nvo3-vmm-dmm-pmip-07.txt

Have you read that draft? Here is the abstract:

This document specifies a virtual machine mobility protocol in data
   centers built with overlay-based network virtualization approach.
   The protocol is based on using NVA-NVE protocol to update ARP table
   or neighbor cache entries at the NVA and the source NVEs tunneling
   in-flight packets to the destination NVE after the virtual machine
   moves from source NVE to the destination NVE.

It has nothing to do with PMIP, we just forgot to change the draft title.
In any case the draft was not submitted as a maintenance draft to dmm.

> I wonder why ? Academic interest ?

As you may know I was professor for many years. So I know what
academic interest means.

Behcet

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:40:43 +0000

>Have you read that draft? Here is the abstract:

No. I never read your drafts. Its possible your titles and references to a
protocol are clearly by accident. This is similar to your arguments which
mix up things and confuse the issue. Your real issue is with BBF Hybrid
Access work and you have a protocol in mind and which is fine. Blocking
some other extensions with these comments is unfortunate. An extension it
makes sense or not is based on WG interest and clearly this is also in
scope of the charter.

Sri

---

From: Jouni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:56:44 -0800

Behcet,

Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 maintenance since these protocol families are already past their prime time as “hot research topics". Looking at the existing charter I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can let MIPv4 finally rest in peace.

- Jouni

> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jouni, all,
>

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:19:48 -0600

Hi Jouni,

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Jouni <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Behcet,
>
> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 maintenance since these protocol families are already past their prime time as “hot research topics".

Are you second guessing conference/journal decision people? Again,
with my academic background I can say that we should stay away from
such things.

Another implication of what you seem to be saying is that these poor
guys can not publish in conferences/journals, dmm should give them a
refuge?

Of course ISE could be a channel, just say go to ISE.

> Looking at the existing charter

As you know charters can be modified. Especially charter items are
easy to be modified, i.e. probably no need to go to IESG. I have seen
chairs modifying charter items, with AD approval.

> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can let MIPv4 finally rest in peace.

Maybe that's your thinking, other people may have different opinion.

Behcet