Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus Call: Way Forward on NETLMM Solution

From: "Avi Lior" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:05:45 -0500

Vidya,

The way you are calling for the consensus call is wrong IMO.

I think that regradless of whether or not people were in san diego they need to re-express their choice.

The counts should be reset to zero. For obvious reasons.

Second, I don't think people need to provide a rational.  After all a rational was not asked of us when we raise our hands in san diego.

I support the PMIP. Decision.

Furthermore I believe we should support both v4 and v6.

Finally, we should not restrict PMIP for local mobility - we should remain silent about that. And here I will give a rational.  Despite james speech at the mic about the virtues of having a mobility client in every mobile.  The reality of the matter is that there is a very large os vendor that refuses to provide a mobility stack in their OS.  It is precisely for this reason that WiMax chose to deploy PMIP along with CMIP.  

Avi

--------------------------
Avi Lior  Bridgewater Systems
cell +1 613 796-4183
work +1 613 591-9104 x 6417

-----Original Message-----
From: Narayanan, Vidya <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tue Dec 12 16:21:01 2006
Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call: Way Forward on NETLMM Solution

This is the official call to confirm the tentative decisions from the
IETF67 NETLMM meeting regarding the direction of the NETLMM solution
space going forward. The following questions (Q*) were asked and the
associated responses (R*) were received: 

Q1. Should the NETLMM WG adopt more than one approach?
R1. Yes - 10; No - Majority (strong consensus at the meeting on adopting
only one approach). 

Q2. Should the NETLMM WG adopt the DT solution?
R2. 30 in favor of DT solution

Q3. Should the NETLMM WG adopt a PMIP-based approach?
R3. 45 (+2 on jabber) in favor of PMIP-based approach

Q4. Should the NETLMM WG adopt a DHCP-based approach?
R4. 3 in favor of DHCP-based approach

Q5. Would you be comfortable with the WG exclusively pursuing a
PMIP-based approach?
R5. Yes - 50; No - 23

Based on the above, it was determined that we have "rough consensus" to
move forward with a PMIP-based approach. 

The results from the meeting are documented at
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/minutes/netlmm.txt. 

If you weren't in San Diego, please state your opinion either as
supporting this decision or disagreeing with it (but please provide a
rationale). If you were at the meeting in San Diego, it is not
imperative to respond, unless you have changed your mind since then, in
which case, again, please provide a rationale.

Thanks,
The Chairs

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

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:02:00 -0800

Hi Avi,
The current consensus call is in compliance with Section 3.3 of RFC2418.
The count cannot be reset to zero, given that we had a lot more people
at the meeting than are active on the mailing list. Please check RFC2418
for details. 
 
Providing a rationale always helps the chairs in making decisions. At
the meeting, we had a lot of discussion before these questions were
asked. It would be good to know the rationale from folks who were not at
the meeting, so we are aware of any industry needs and technical
reasons. 
 
On other charter/scope related questions (v4/v6 or the scope of PMIP),
let's discuss them separately and not as part of this thread. 
 
Thanks,
Vidya

________________________________

	From: Avi Lior [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:06 PM
	To: Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked]
	Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus Call: Way Forward on NETLMM
Solution

	Vidya,

	I think that regradless of whether or not people were in san
diego they need to re-express their choice.

	Second, I don't think people need to provide a rational.  After
all a rational was not asked of us when we raise our hands in san diego.

	
	Finally, we should not restrict PMIP for local mobility - we
should remain silent about that. And here I will give a rational.
Despite james speech at the mic about the virtues of having a mobility
client in every mobile.  The reality of the matter is that there is a
very large os vendor that refuses to provide a mobility stack in their
OS.  It is precisely for this reason that WiMax chose to deploy PMIP
along with CMIP. 
	
	Avi

	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Narayanan, Vidya <[email-masked]>
	To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
	Sent: Tue Dec 12 16:21:01 2006
	Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call: Way Forward on NETLMM Solution

	This is the official call to confirm the tentative decisions
from the
	IETF67 NETLMM meeting regarding the direction of the NETLMM
solution
	space going forward. The following questions (Q*) were asked and
the
	associated responses (R*) were received:
	
	Q1. Should the NETLMM WG adopt more than one approach?
	R1. Yes - 10; No - Majority (strong consensus at the meeting on
adopting
	only one approach).

	

	Based on the above, it was determined that we have "rough
consensus" to
	move forward with a PMIP-based approach.

	If you weren't in San Diego, please state your opinion either as
	supporting this decision or disagreeing with it (but please
provide a
	rationale). If you were at the meeting in San Diego, it is not
	imperative to respond, unless you have changed your mind since
then, in
	which case, again, please provide a rationale.
	
	Thanks,
	The Chairs

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:48:45 +0100

> at the meeting than are active on the mailing list. Please check RFC2418

You write as if RFC2418 says that it matters if the number of people present
at the meeting were larger than the number of people active on the mailing
list.  RFC 2418 does not say any such thing!

It has an example of 100 people at the meeting, with only a few people
disagreeing on the list; this can *not* be generalized either to not
being able to re-set the count (RFC 2418 never talks about counts at all)
or to give precedence to number of people in the meeting to number of
people *active* on the list.  If you are going to compare presence, you
need to compare people active in the microphone queue at the meeting with
people actively expressing views on the list, *or* number of people at
the meeting with number of people subscribed to the list.

	Henrik