From Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Mon Jul 4 02:14:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640B421F85D2; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 02:14:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.172 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 80iMViehwXbD; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 02:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail73.telekom.de (tcmail73.telekom.de [217.243.239.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3D321F85A2; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 02:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he110890.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.92.131]) by tcmail71.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 04 Jul 2011 11:09:47 +0200 Received: from HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.4.236]) by he110890 ([10.134.92.131]) with mapi; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:09:09 +0200 From: To: , Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:09:09 +0200 Thread-Topic: [MEXT] IETF-81 Thread-Index: Acw1OPJtSAD0aRjPRMy0zAGrjswx3AE8Cb+A Message-ID: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> In-Reply-To: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 09:14:19 -0000 Dear all, I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need m= ore discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and poten= tially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list. Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in http://tools.ietf.= org/agenda/81/? Best regards Dirk -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Hi= detoshi Yokota Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 An: mext@ietf.org Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 Hi Julien and all, Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting will be needed. Please take a look at the following I-D: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt Thanks in advance for your support, -- Hidetoshi (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: > Folks, > > at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require > face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. > > --julien& marcelo > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From charliep@computer.org Mon Jul 4 17:08:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B6121F87DF for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:08:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pwDIy8sECXma for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806CC21F87DC for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [99.51.74.16] (helo=[192.168.1.239]) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QdtBs-00035S-RS for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:08:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4E125602.5050804@computer.org> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:08:34 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad864369563cc3f933f7e8571143935749e5350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 99.51.74.16 Subject: [MEXT] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-perkins-mext-sffexts-00.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:08:38 -0000 Hello folks, I have submitted a new Internet Draft detailing a new mechanism for helping the MN to interact with the SFF handover optimization infrastructure for suitable wireless networks. This work is related to efforts within IEEE 802.21(c) specifying handover operations for wireless handsets with multiple radio interfaces running in single-radio mode. This document is also available at the following URL: http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-mext-sffexts-00.txt The document is still undergoing revision; if warranted, an updated document with corrections and improvements will be resubmitted ASAP before IETF 81. Regards, Charlie P. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-perkins-mext-sffexts-00.txt Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 16:50:12 -0700 From: To: CC: , A new version of I-D, draft-perkins-mext-sffexts-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Charles Perkins and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-perkins-mext-sffexts Revision: 00 Title: SFF Extensions for Mobile IPv6 Creation date: 2011-07-04 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 13 Abstract: A mobile node with multiple radio interfaces running in single-radio mode will typically need IP address continuity as it migrates from one 4G wireless network to another; Mobile IPv6 is very well suited for that purpose. For such mobile nodes using Mobile IP, mobility management by the home agent can be extended to provide necessary information about the Signal Forwarding Functions (SFFs) that have been defined for WiMAX and for eHRPD/CDMA networks. In this document, we explain the operations required to support single-radio mobile nodes and specify new extensions to Mobile IPv6 Binding Update and Binding Acknowledgement for supporting ease of access between mobile nodes and SFFs. The IETF Secretariat From charles.perkins@earthlink.net Mon Jul 4 17:14:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199EC11E807C; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:14:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jA-4QkmqrLCI; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88EC211E8075; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:14:08 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=aHHgmEToFJLYiNyiCpAs5ZIVm1KYRmCVAZI6KsS5moz70sS9Ccssdo57NwBRIjCG; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [99.51.74.16] (helo=[192.168.1.239]) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QdtHD-0002Mo-Lt; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:14:07 -0400 Message-ID: <4E12574D.3090807@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:14:05 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext , dmm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad863a8a26e4de8199b6b2f2ce1ad9fda0d2350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 99.51.74.16 Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22=27=A1=CF=EB=C2=D9=27_=5C=22=22?= Subject: [MEXT] Revised document for DMM comparison matrix X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:14:09 -0000 Hello folks, The new document is available at the following URL: http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-00.txt I submitted this document at 4:45pm, and expected to receive and email for verifying the submission. The verification email has not arrived, and it is 5:10pm now. I think I somehow ran up against a bug in the submission process. We expect to update the document again this week in order to complete the explanation of all of the matrix entries, and also to take into account any additional mailing list discussion over the next few days. Please excuse the unexpected error preventing me from getting the submission completed on time before the IETF -00 submission deadline. Regards, Charlie P. From julien.ietf@gmail.com Tue Jul 5 08:29:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C10149E801A; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:29:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t68fYFwPmcAA; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E1A21F8605; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwb17 with SMTP id 17so5834311bwb.31 for ; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:29:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zojaG5znKUs2tdm41OE7nrIyPrIoQHXlcTT1uaajUKY=; b=Mb48kg6dF4EEv9OUoSNsfdmBxidRr39prPPfKX0LrMPus8kym5Ht3YdhduScdLGOzE yKJXUxbhETqiRKCeElp9M96is9kRhXRica/364spnVGMS49k15XOcXmRvFxu4f1TowEG kGShRFqEXJmEAZjv3mRuGDdp0NxNMSg0WwZpM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.14.204 with SMTP id h12mr6739390bka.78.1309879743542; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.65.193 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:29:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:29:03 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:29:06 -0000 Dirk and Hidetoshi, Face to face meeting time should IMHO primarily be used to resolve issues that cannot be resolved on the WG mailing list. As of now I do not see any, hence the absence of a MEXT WG meeting. Best, --julien On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM, wrote: > Dear all, > I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need= more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and pot= entially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list. > Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in http://tools.iet= f.org/agenda/81/? > > Best regards > Dirk > > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von = Hidetoshi Yokota > Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 > An: mext@ietf.org > Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 > > Hi Julien and all, > > Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of > "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to > discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got > consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting > will be needed. > > Please take a look at the following I-D: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt > > Thanks in advance for your support, > -- > Hidetoshi > > (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >> Folks, >> >> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >> >> --julien& =A0marcelo >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Tue Jul 5 14:42:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F82B21F885E for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 14:42:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.124 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.725, BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ZO5fUvWyaGk for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 14:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm21.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm21.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A48F521F885D for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 14:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.66] by nm21.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jul 2011 21:42:17 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.22] by tm6.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jul 2011 21:42:17 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1022.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jul 2011 21:42:17 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 580908.30957.bm@omp1022.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 129 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Jul 2011 21:42:17 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1309902137; bh=2Y/QS1dS7jQ4dCJYm/EAL5a+mgF7n42gYlkE6jJexHA=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=zDOJ+MLQVRZA8ipXkLu/6TPat3AwcrjmoAJyWnFFLePC7kNlXRbK52F2sLdT202MasKzEdbpClqYRvObatJb6gfCUbrMk+VY3E62N1FAC6nr3htCaDo69CUfvSmA22/rxF+OcbuK5uM0qHmF9Au5ythAahL/hbNN74SNnpFTO+Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=D3NeYTfcVGfP92Rm9x1W1gvsHSOeQ8+ASWWfbLtSZZcAuGnK4RIf7r1mljLWCWMeSD6SGoyfEyoFT1EPw3UJU5Yssun8/CIjo1VZ6mPddeO5EzPCyQ75n8XgQzTtYlFeDG9/IwOlgTLTjGvSsN+uqNskUKsI54Bd0qGuRvYZeko=; X-YMail-OSG: FujlkbMVM1mbxKlK5UsdlbLm1m9fPwfPSlfpCO1s7g8Mg81 Exqi0MErxcC3jBnZgAV7ZvxpQolVR0H2pjQM75KoVMR.S1puo5Yoe6W.Frem a.EByFJCogfSMpdMR5_XWC8meYEERCKRQg9IwP2.OWgTXMSnxQuyJqmL5LS6 crrbH0rghRl98PApwfsHK2ATMEam1dx_vE_lGjL2XaBD_PmroXu_bdpzAQFb KHxZYY8W2NkK9yF3LHGnbRT1bS2WSYP_fe1lg45QOMEWAAWIJFWF9fUpzBAA wg3ux_0vt3j93n5UIu8aDecuFEQj95GSPFWXR1YWo0lKfuM2PtTlUv8zAHJm IUOlm8Z30ZiEtBzgzcjqX_A1xhOmg73pFiRxBjiKk5tZh4xMs4Gp6jm8j63P t5EY.RyN_x6V_BQ-- Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 14:42:17 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> <1309446892.22958.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4BB26130-DEEF-4A97-9720-DE8AED8D2C96@us.toyota-itc.com> Message-ID: <1309902137.88713.YahooMailRC@web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 14:42:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Romain KUNTZ In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: [MEXT] draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:42:18 -0000 Hi Romain, A quick review of your draft. On HMIPv6, I agree with your observations. I think that DMA and DLMA are PMIPv6 dmm solutions and so maybe not so interesting for Mext. ON DMI,it is a little archaic and also does not address all issues of DMM. It just gives some good ideas, I think. You mentioned separation of control and data planes which is from yokota-dmm-scenario. This is a tough requirement to satisfy within MIPv6 domain. I think that one more requirement of no extensions to MIPv6 has been mentioned in Beijing meeting. So the drafts can be measured on how close they come to this requirement. Lastly, you have not covered newer drafts like draft-sarikaya-mext-multicastdmm. It would be more productive to review the dmm solution drafts on mext list, as Julien mentioned. Regards, Behcet From yokota@kddilabs.jp Wed Jul 6 01:55:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1CB21F873A; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 01:55:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1-GfdBY28G-8; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 01:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C26521F8672; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 01:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991E817481CA; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:53:37 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ezTqCCJSKn5E; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:53:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.145]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5904A17481B1; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:53:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) by ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2051A1B9B2; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:52:33 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:53:25 +0900 From: Hidetoshi Yokota User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julien Laganier References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: mext@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:55:32 -0000 Hi Julien, WG mailing list is the base of the discussion, but sometimes it takes very long time to proceed, by which it loses timeliness. Network-initiated flow mobility or Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) come from urgent needs and IETF has the reputation of responding to such needs in a timely manner. F2F meeting is generally more efficient than ML discussion and effective for the chairs to progress the standards process. I believe that ML discussion and F2F meeting are the two wheels of moving I-Ds forward and we shouldn't miss the opportunity of F2F meetings, which happen only three times in a year. Regards, -- Hidetoshi (2011/07/06 0:29), Julien Laganier wrote: > Dirk and Hidetoshi, > > Face to face meeting time should IMHO primarily be used to resolve > issues that cannot be resolved on the WG mailing list. As of now I do > not see any, hence the absence of a MEXT WG meeting. > > Best, > > --julien > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM, wrote: >> Dear all, >> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list. >> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/? >> >> Best regards >> Dirk >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Hidetoshi Yokota >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 >> An: mext@ietf.org >> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 >> >> Hi Julien and all, >> >> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of >> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to >> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got >> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting >> will be needed. >> >> Please take a look at the following I-D: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt >> >> Thanks in advance for your support, >> -- >> Hidetoshi >> >> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >>> >>> --julien& marcelo >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> dmm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> > > > From pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com Wed Jul 6 06:36:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472FA21F85A7 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 06:36:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nisnISn38kOv for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 06:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8715921F8593 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 06:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9EE4095800D; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:44:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97732958008; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:44:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:36:28 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:36:27 +0200 Message-ID: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C46201CC884B@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <1309902137.88713.YahooMailRC@web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 Thread-Index: Acw7XKPNIRaSVNutQ7KdxLWv8GXfOgAhGWTw References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org><44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com><1309446892.22958.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4BB26130-DEEF-4A97-9720-DE8AED8D2C96@us.toyota-itc.com> <1309902137.88713.YahooMailRC@web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2011 13:36:28.0263 (UTC) FILETIME=[B551F770:01CC3BE1] Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:36:36 -0000 Hi, DMA is a generic concept of distribution of mobility anchors and dynamic = activation of mobility signalling. It is illustrated with PMIP but can = also be applied to MIP/FMIP. I agree it should be clarified with a = specific DMA-mip draft... Pierrick > -----Message d'origine----- > De=A0: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] De la part = de > Behcet Sarikaya > Envoy=E9=A0: mardi 5 juillet 2011 23:42 > =C0=A0: Romain KUNTZ > Cc=A0: mext@ietf.org > Objet=A0: [MEXT] draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 >=20 > Hi Romain, > A quick review of your draft. > On HMIPv6, I agree with your observations. > I think that DMA and DLMA are PMIPv6 dmm solutions and so maybe not so > interesting for Mext. > ON DMI,it is a little archaic and also does not address all issues of = DMM. > It > just gives some good ideas, I think. >=20 > You mentioned separation of control and data planes which is from > yokota-dmm-scenario. This is a tough requirement to satisfy within = MIPv6 > domain. > I think that one more requirement of no extensions to MIPv6 has been > mentioned > in Beijing meeting. So the drafts can be measured on how close they = come > to this > requirement. >=20 > Lastly, you have not covered newer drafts like draft-sarikaya-mext- > multicastdmm. >=20 > It would be more productive to review the dmm solution drafts on mext = list, > as > Julien mentioned. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Behcet >=20 > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From julien.ietf@gmail.com Wed Jul 6 07:31:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD9521F85B1; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:31:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EfUG8nRgVgYp; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAAC621F85AC; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:31:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwb17 with SMTP id 17so137954bwb.31 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 07:31:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ap2vOSgto8SFnFCTJ+CHVq8/t+uMpOM44bl5wpoB1ss=; b=B0Hn6PCCf5UTiLxZWmh1H+4pP/+OMpa7qp1HANJ6Lx4J58Msm5L7DG03JWv3l7+63P FoSIY/75VziDQGJK2A/fqDi+wwRolV9fp/Cum+ybVt70wRdxbZHq16o1MRrq+C/044wm gypXH/l8Gqf/i894OqcLXxRdbvj2uPpbRh3oM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.42.129 with SMTP id s1mr7513412bke.213.1309962716312; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 07:31:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.65.193 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:31:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:31:55 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Hidetoshi Yokota Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mext@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:31:59 -0000 Hidetoshi, If WG mailing list on a given topic doesn' t happen in a timely fashion, I would suggest that either people are not interested in the topic, or it's not urgent to them. If a topic isn't urgent for people, then IMHO giving them face-to-face time isn't urgent either. --julien On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Hidetoshi Yokota wrote= : > Hi Julien, > > WG mailing list is the base of the discussion, but sometimes it takes ver= y > long time to proceed, by which it loses timeliness. Network-initiated flo= w > mobility or Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) come from urgent needs = and > IETF has the reputation of responding to such needs in a timely manner. F= 2F > meeting is generally more efficient than ML discussion and effective for = the > chairs to progress the standards process. I believe that ML discussion an= d > F2F meeting are the two wheels of moving I-Ds forward and we shouldn't mi= ss > the opportunity of F2F meetings, which happen only three times in a year. > > Regards, > -- > Hidetoshi > > (2011/07/06 0:29), Julien Laganier wrote: >> >> Dirk and Hidetoshi, >> >> Face to face meeting time should IMHO primarily be used to resolve >> issues that cannot be resolved on the WG mailing list. As of now I do >> not see any, hence the absence of a MEXT WG meeting. >> >> Best, >> >> --julien >> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM, =A0wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should ne= ed >>> more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and >>> potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this lis= t. >>> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in >>> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/? >>> >>> Best regards >>> Dirk >>> >>> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag vo= n >>> Hidetoshi Yokota >>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 >>> An: mext@ietf.org >>> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 >>> >>> Hi Julien and all, >>> >>> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of >>> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to >>> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got >>> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting >>> will be needed. >>> >>> Please take a look at the following I-D: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your support, >>> -- >>> Hidetoshi >>> >>> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >>>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >>>> >>>> --julien& =A0 =A0marcelo >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm mailing list >>> dmm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>> >> >> >> > > From anpartha@cisco.com Wed Jul 6 09:59:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B05221F8784 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:59:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U+DxfEPGUO0H for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:59:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8959821F877C for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:59:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=anpartha@cisco.com; l=2033; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1309971561; x=1311181161; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:from:to; bh=qZbGXY6vYNg9wtoRfI0atctHbK+/MMv7Ep2gbD8v48I=; b=Vt08jaG+ASL6koLqa3oe6CzuPB7cIQUfFUcvoUYFcUmuTeuFTQ9SSvqK O17pEzcI7cuOhmfr+gOnANcHjaLl/vwTeUAh1PjJlzK34yksvOAvvxyqi sdKBVdyeiPwd/ZAJzDmSEJyyVR7dsqtK+x4IiqOi2eX4bV/psxSWJeeMM g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnILAAKUFE6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABTglGWSIZwh3xzBIhzpBWBIp4ShjcEh0aPfota X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,488,1304294400"; d="scan'208,217";a="291402553" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jul 2011 16:59:21 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p66GxLUD025387 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 16:59:21 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.111]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:59:21 -0700 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC3BFE.0CAF2F51" Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:59:18 -0700 Message-ID: <859D3899ECCBB74394F2D3E09734ADF4D48B1F@xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: thread-topic: unsubscribe thread-index: Acw7/gt3KR04lCBDT9+MxR4fQYODWg== From: "Anand Parthasarathy (anpartha)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2011 16:59:21.0034 (UTC) FILETIME=[0CDB6AA0:01CC3BFE] Subject: [MEXT] unsubscribe X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:59:22 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC3BFE.0CAF2F51 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable unsubscribe ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC3BFE.0CAF2F51 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

unsubscribe

------_=_NextPart_001_01CC3BFE.0CAF2F51-- From rkuntz@us.toyota-itc.com Wed Jul 6 10:49:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B628B21F89DE for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:49:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yrf3lUDrpJJJ for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog105.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog105.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CFBD21F89D2 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.210.175]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob105.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKThSgOTIy7oZnyI0IBYCMlEjcSg9yOdY+@postini.com; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:49:46 PDT Received: by mail-iy0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 10so171109iym.6 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:49:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.152.74 with SMTP id h10mr10509666icw.484.1309974585242; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:49:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from saby-lt.paloalto.toyota-itc.com ([206.132.173.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hp8sm8980968icc.23.2011.07.06.10.49.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Romain KUNTZ In-Reply-To: <1309902137.88713.YahooMailRC@web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:49:40 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org> <44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com> <1309446892.22958.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4BB26130-DEEF-4A97-9720-DE8AED8D2C96@us.toyota-itc.com> <1309902137.88713.YahooMailRC@web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> To: Behcet Sarikaya X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:49:48 -0000 Hi Behcet,=20 On Jul 5, 2011, at 14:42, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi Romain, > A quick review of your draft. > On HMIPv6, I agree with your observations. > I think that DMA and DLMA are PMIPv6 dmm solutions and so maybe not so=20= > interesting for Mext. Yes, we tried to be exhaustive on the DMM topic, but may consider = refocus the draft on MIPv6 only.=20 > ON DMI,it is a little archaic and also does not address all issues of = DMM. It=20 > just gives some good ideas, I think. >=20 > You mentioned separation of control and data planes which is from=20 > yokota-dmm-scenario. This is a tough requirement to satisfy within = MIPv6 domain.=20 > I think that one more requirement of no extensions to MIPv6 has been = mentioned=20 > in Beijing meeting. So the drafts can be measured on how close they = come to this=20 > requirement. I agree, we will add some text to discuss whether the solutions needs = modification on the MN side, on the HA side, or both.=20 > Lastly, you have not covered newer drafts like = draft-sarikaya-mext-multicastdmm. Our draft was submitted in early May, and it seems yours was submitted = later. But we'll consider it for the next revision.=20 > It would be more productive to review the dmm solution drafts on mext = list, as=20 > Julien mentioned. Yes, the main purpose of our draft was to summarize the various existing = PS/solutions documents and should not prevent people from providing more = thorough comments on specific drafts. Thank you, romain From yokota@kddilabs.jp Wed Jul 6 17:28:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B4021F87C7; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:28:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NpG-CAKilpXt; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 380FE21F87C1; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E084917482ED; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:28:00 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3q4JjJsswRYT; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:27:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.145]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A931817482E9; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:27:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) by ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B081B9B2; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:26:55 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 09:27:45 +0900 From: Hidetoshi Yokota User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julien Laganier References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: mext@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:28:34 -0000 Hi Julien, WG mailing list sometimes leads to a lengthy discussion, which creates misunderstandings and frustration that could be avoided if it was discussed in a F2F meeting. Urgency is one important aspect but mutual understanding is another good aspect of F2F meeting. It is pity to miss such a precious opportunity for nothing in spite of a couple of very interesting I-Ds awaiting a good discussion... -- Hidetoshi (2011/07/06 23:31), Julien Laganier wrote: > Hidetoshi, > > If WG mailing list on a given topic doesn' t happen in a timely > fashion, I would suggest that either people are not interested in the > topic, or it's not urgent to them. If a topic isn't urgent for > people, then IMHO giving them face-to-face time isn't urgent either. > > --julien > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Hidetoshi Yokota wrote: >> Hi Julien, >> >> WG mailing list is the base of the discussion, but sometimes it takes very >> long time to proceed, by which it loses timeliness. Network-initiated flow >> mobility or Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) come from urgent needs and >> IETF has the reputation of responding to such needs in a timely manner. F2F >> meeting is generally more efficient than ML discussion and effective for the >> chairs to progress the standards process. I believe that ML discussion and >> F2F meeting are the two wheels of moving I-Ds forward and we shouldn't miss >> the opportunity of F2F meetings, which happen only three times in a year. >> >> Regards, >> -- >> Hidetoshi >> >> (2011/07/06 0:29), Julien Laganier wrote: >>> >>> Dirk and Hidetoshi, >>> >>> Face to face meeting time should IMHO primarily be used to resolve >>> issues that cannot be resolved on the WG mailing list. As of now I do >>> not see any, hence the absence of a MEXT WG meeting. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> --julien >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM, wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need >>>> more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and >>>> potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list. >>>> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/? >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Dirk >>>> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>> Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Hidetoshi Yokota >>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 >>>> An: mext@ietf.org >>>> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 >>>> >>>> Hi Julien and all, >>>> >>>> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of >>>> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to >>>> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got >>>> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting >>>> will be needed. >>>> >>>> Please take a look at the following I-D: >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance for your support, >>>> -- >>>> Hidetoshi >>>> >>>> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >>>>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >>>>> >>>>> --julien& marcelo >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dmm mailing list >>>> dmm@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > From ashutosh.dutta@ieee.org Wed Jul 6 18:02:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3521821F86E9 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:02:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X7+-Be1MohIg for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brinza.cc.columbia.edu (brinza.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7244821F86E1 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from akee.cc.columbia.edu (akee.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.28.102]) by brinza.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p67125K5002591 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 21:02:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from akee.cc.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by akee.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p67125ld027407 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 21:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from www@localhost) by akee.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.13.0/Submit) id p67125ru027406 for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 21:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 173-161-151-17-Philadelphia.hfc.comcastbusiness.net (173-161-151-17-Philadelphia.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.161.151.17]) by cubmail.cc.columbia.edu (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:02:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20110706210205.qmfm4plq8w0w0ks8@cubmail.cc.columbia.edu> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:02:05 -0400 From: Ashutosh Dutta To: mext@ietf.org References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> In-Reply-To: <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.6) X-CubMail-Sender: ad37@columbia.edu X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.8 Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 01:02:10 -0000 Hi Julien, I agree with Yokota-san that face-to-face discussion helps =20 a lot to avoid confusion and clarify the technical details. We should =20 encourage face-to-face discussion as much as possible for the =20 technical details. Regards Ashutosh Quoting Hidetoshi Yokota : > Hi Julien, > > WG mailing list sometimes leads to a lengthy discussion, which creates > misunderstandings and frustration that could be avoided if it was > discussed in a F2F meeting. Urgency is one important aspect but mutual > understanding is another good aspect of F2F meeting. It is pity to miss > such a precious opportunity for nothing in spite of a couple of very > interesting I-Ds awaiting a good discussion... > > --=20 > Hidetoshi > > (2011/07/06 23:31), Julien Laganier wrote: >> Hidetoshi, >> >> If WG mailing list on a given topic doesn' t happen in a timely >> fashion, I would suggest that either people are not interested in the >> topic, or it's not urgent to them. If a topic isn't urgent for >> people, then IMHO giving them face-to-face time isn't urgent either. >> >> --julien >> >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Hidetoshi Yokota wro= te: >>> Hi Julien, >>> >>> WG mailing list is the base of the discussion, but sometimes it takes ve= ry >>> long time to proceed, by which it loses timeliness. Network-initiated fl= ow >>> mobility or Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) come from urgent =20 >>> needs and >>> IETF has the reputation of responding to such needs in a timely manner. = F2F >>> meeting is generally more efficient than ML discussion and =20 >>> effective for the >>> chairs to progress the standards process. I believe that ML discussion a= nd >>> F2F meeting are the two wheels of moving I-Ds forward and we shouldn't m= iss >>> the opportunity of F2F meetings, which happen only three times in a year= . >>> >>> Regards, >>> -- >>> Hidetoshi >>> >>> (2011/07/06 0:29), Julien Laganier wrote: >>>> >>>> Dirk and Hidetoshi, >>>> >>>> Face to face meeting time should IMHO primarily be used to resolve >>>> issues that cannot be resolved on the WG mailing list. As of now I do >>>> not see any, hence the absence of a MEXT WG meeting. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> --julien >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM, wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should n= eed >>>>> more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and >>>>> potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this li= st. >>>>> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Dirk >>>>> >>>>> -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Nachricht----- >>>>> Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag v= on >>>>> Hidetoshi Yokota >>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 >>>>> An: mext@ietf.org >>>>> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 >>>>> >>>>> Hi Julien and all, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version o= f >>>>> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to >>>>> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got >>>>> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting >>>>> will be needed. >>>>> >>>>> Please take a look at the following I-D: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance for your support, >>>>> -- >>>>> Hidetoshi >>>>> >>>>> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >>>>>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >>>>>> >>>>>> --julien& marcelo >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> dmm mailing list >>>>> dmm@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From marcelo@it.uc3m.es Wed Jul 6 23:16:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764E321F87A7 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 23:16:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0diXSIfjr9TJ for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 23:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4313621F88D1 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 23:16:07 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (35.50.22.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.22.50.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3C0BF8DF8 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 08:16:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 08:16:04 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext@ietf.org References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> In-Reply-To: <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18244.003 Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 06:16:08 -0000 Hi, below... El 07/07/11 02:27, Hidetoshi Yokota escribió: > Hi Julien, > > WG mailing list sometimes leads to a lengthy discussion, which creates > misunderstandings and frustration that could be avoided if it was > discussed in a F2F meeting. i agree please point out the lenghty discussion that ocurred in the mext ml since the last IETF meeting that deserves f2f time to clarify the misunderstanding that were generated. > Urgency is one important aspect but mutual understanding is another > good aspect of F2F meeting. It is pity to miss such a precious > opportunity for nothing in spite of a couple of very interesting I-Ds > awaiting a good discussion... > Right, but having a meeting to discuss issues that people not care enough to even comment in the ml, seems like a waste of time Regards, marcelo From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Thu Jul 7 09:30:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583691F0C3F for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:30:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z8tHHB9aAi76 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm8.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm8.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 983651F0C3E for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.64] by nm8.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jul 2011 16:30:06 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.9] by tm4.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jul 2011 16:30:06 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1009.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jul 2011 16:30:06 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 542915.62180.bm@omp1009.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 85354 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Jul 2011 16:30:03 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1310056203; bh=Tpp9wgRt+rnCA9dj2bYZr0iaAdiYXnoH4XLu95MOOAI=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=0J9Ozw/vvde+GXtIy7ahduiVX7ekZPJLUqEa2fcnf/AE6X60YDEsO3QU5FHrBZ4l8sIoQ7uqDWvuuWOUoGSfPOJtAkFHE4smdARqs86CQfmakqQcX2ppmENKx7D39rkpYTJWhVRnAB47PR4oAsRBwMRRzs4AXo4OCVF7Hq6CHvE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=mVnNysNFKQeDb4lKyxHPbrutUz9fbKNjSNHc8FYLtv6UqwUwKhDXjXrL/sMFcPLtKGGRn5ktZy4TRbHTiEKKLx7CjeFpQ4JT4hVE1vF5CW7bEti/QocRkvzs0MXyyW3/NpCE2SltNM1tBFLj8tch9LdpH9ece4XAvUUKrDPg710=; X-YMail-OSG: Bnc1BhwVM1kO74AG7Wg8iyRnNrxkZVelj_XkGONu35dEanK .ZQ0HyzwK Received: from [50.58.7.243] by web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 09:30:02 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: <4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org><44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com><1309446892.22958.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4BB26130-DEEF-4A97-9720-DE8AED8D2C96@us.toyota-itc.com> <1309902137.88713.YahooMailRC@web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C46201CC884B@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> Message-ID: <1310056202.81117.YahooMailRC@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:30:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com, s In-Reply-To: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C46201CC884B@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:30:07 -0000 =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A> =0A> Hi,=0A> =0A> DMA is a generic concept of distribution= of mobility anchors and dynamic =0A>activation of mobility signalling. It= is illustrated with PMIP but can also be =0A>applied to MIP/FMIP. I agree= it should be clarified with a specific DMA-mip =0A>draft...=0A> =0A=0A=0A= Don't get me wrong. I did not say it is not interesting, I said it might no= t =0Ainterest Mext people.=0A=0AI think that PMIP DMM could interest Mobopt= s. The chairs said non-MIP solutions =0Aare in their scope.=0A=0ARegards,= =0A=0ABehcet=0A> Pierrick=0A> =0A> > -----Message d'origine-----=0A> > De = : mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de=0A> >= Behcet Sarikaya=0A> > Envoy=E9 : mardi 5 juillet 2011 23:42=0A> > =C0 : R= omain KUNTZ=0A> > Cc : mext@ietf.org=0A> > Objet : [MEXT] draft-kuntz-dmm-= summary-00=0A> > =0A> > Hi Romain,=0A> > A quick review of your draft.= =0A> > On HMIPv6, I agree with your observations.=0A> > I think that DMA a= nd DLMA are PMIPv6 dmm solutions and so maybe not so=0A> > interesting for= Mext.=0A> > ON DMI,it is a little archaic and also does not address all i= ssues of DMM.=0A> > It=0A> > just gives some good ideas, I think.=0A> > = =0A> > You mentioned separation of control and data planes which is from= =0A> > yokota-dmm-scenario. This is a tough requirement to satisfy within = MIPv6=0A> > domain.=0A> > I think that one more requirement of no extensio= ns to MIPv6 has been=0A> > mentioned=0A> > in Beijing meeting. So the draf= ts can be measured on how close they come=0A> > to this=0A> > requirement.= =0A> > =0A> > Lastly, you have not covered newer drafts like draft-sarikay= a-mext-=0A> > multicastdmm.=0A> > =0A> > It would be more productive to re= view the dmm solution drafts on mext list,=0A> > as=0A> > Julien mentioned= .=0A> > =0A> > Regards,=0A> > =0A> > Behcet=0A> > =0A> > __________________= _____________________________=0A> > MEXT mailing list=0A> > MEXT@ietf.org= =0A> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext=0A> From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Fri Jul 8 10:25:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86ADC21F8C40 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 10:25:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.711 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.462, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qvz6Jp1KVIO6 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 10:25:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A5621F8C3F for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 10:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.2) with ESMTP id p68HPrU3007307 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 8 Jul 2011 19:25:53 +0200 Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p68HPqcl007162; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 19:25:53 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com) Received: from [132.166.133.178] (is010173.intra.cea.fr [132.166.133.178]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id p68HPq6g028227; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 19:25:52 +0200 Message-ID: <4E173DA0.9020701@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 19:25:52 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de References: <4DCA8821.9070301@gmail.com> <4DD274E4.1060600@gmail.com> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A257349CBDD@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> In-Reply-To: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A257349CBDD@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] Discussions and drafts about vehicular communications X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 17:25:55 -0000 No new things happened at IETF about Vehicular Networks since last IETF in Prague. The list of drafts related to vehicular networking is the following: draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00.txt, October 2009. draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req-02, Jan. 2009. draft-karagiannis-traffic-safety-requirements-02.txt, Feb. 2010. draft-wakikawa-roll-invehicle-reqs-00.txt, May 2008. draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01.txt, Feb. 2011. draft-petrescu-mip4-tuntype-change-00.txt, March 2011. draft-uehara-dtnrg-decentralized-probe-message-00.txt, Nov. 2010. draft-uehara-dtnrg-decentralized-probe-transport-00, Nov. 2010 draft-rosen-ecrit-ecall-04.txt, March 2010. draft-singh-simple-vehicle-info, July 2007. draft-sijeon-mext-nemo-pmip6-00, Oct. 2010. draft-bauer-mext-aero-solspace, Sep. 2009. draft-bauer-mext-aero-topology, Sep. 2009. draft-bernardos-mext-aero-nemo-ro-sol-analysis, Nov. 2008. Alex Le 17/05/2011 16:54, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de a écrit : > Dear Alex, Maybe the following drafts although expired are > interesting in that context: > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-uehara-dtnrg-decentralized-probe-message-00.txt, > Nov. 2010 draft-uehara-dtnrg-decentralized-probe-transport-00, Nov. > 2010 draft-rosen-ecrit-ecall-04.txt, March 2010 > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-singh-simple-vehicle-info, July 2007 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sijeon-mext-nemo-pmip6-00 Oct. 2010 > > If you count planes as vehicles there are also > draft-bauer-mext-aero-solspace Sep 2009 > draft-bauer-mext-aero-topology Sep 2009 > draft-bernardos-mext-aero-nemo-ro-sol-analysis Nov 2008 > > Just my 1.5 cents ;-) > > Best regards Dirk > > Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag > von Alexandru Petrescu Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Mai 2011 15:15 An: > mext Betreff: Re: [MEXT] Discussions and drafts about vehicular > communications > > I added a draft to the top of this list (suggested in private): > > draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00.txt, October 2009. > draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req-02, Jan. 2009. > draft-karagiannis-traffic-safety-requirements-02.txt, Feb. 2010. > draft-wakikawa-roll-invehicle-reqs-00.txt, May 2008. > draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01.txt, Feb. 2011. > draft-petrescu-mip4-tuntype-change-00.txt, March 2011. > > Any other draft related to vehicular communications at IETF that I > miss? > > Any other private discussion that I may be missing? > > Alex > > Le 11/05/2011 14:59, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit : >> Dear MEXTers, >> >> For your information, in Prague and on, these discussions happened >> about vehicular communications and Internet: >> >> - emails public on the MEXT mailing list, and private, about >> interest in vehicular communications, caused by V2V agenda >> request, March 2011. - discussion on the 6MAN list about Vehicle's >> VIN in IPv6, March 2011. - informal chat at the Prague Social >> (Carlos, Giorgios, myself) about pursuing vehicular communications >> activities at IETF, March 2011. - informal chat Ryuji and myself >> about particular companies (non)interest in vehicular >> communications at IETF, March 2011. >> >> Drafts with focus on vehicular communications : >> >> draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req-02, Jan. 2009. >> draft-karagiannis-traffic-safety-requirements-02.txt, Feb. 2010. >> draft-wakikawa-roll-invehicle-reqs-00.txt, May 2008. >> draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01.txt, Feb. 2011. >> >> Any other draft with focus on vehicular communications? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alex >> > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > From yokota@kddilabs.jp Fri Jul 8 16:56:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBD121F8A8E for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:56:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cftlRuDcGgeW for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C3821F877E for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14957174822F for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:56:04 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TnmS6pzKddT4 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:56:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.145]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C541748228 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:56:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) by ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB29A1B9B4 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:55:02 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4E17990F.6030805@kddilabs.jp> Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:55:59 +0900 From: Hidetoshi Yokota User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext@ietf.org References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 23:56:12 -0000 Hi Marcelo, Since the agenda for IETF 81 has been fixed and the MEXT WG is not scheduled there, it won't mean much whatever I say. My comment was intended to describe the importance of a F2F meeting. I'll try to encourage the discussion on the ML. Regards, -- Hidetoshi (2011/07/07 15:16), marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > Hi, > > below... > > El 07/07/11 02:27, Hidetoshi Yokota escribió: >> Hi Julien, >> >> WG mailing list sometimes leads to a lengthy discussion, which creates >> misunderstandings and frustration that could be avoided if it was >> discussed in a F2F meeting. > i agree > please point out the lenghty discussion that ocurred in the mext ml > since the last IETF meeting that deserves f2f time to clarify the > misunderstanding that were generated. > > >> Urgency is one important aspect but mutual understanding is another >> good aspect of F2F meeting. It is pity to miss such a precious >> opportunity for nothing in spite of a couple of very interesting I-Ds >> awaiting a good discussion... >> > Right, but having a meeting to discuss issues that people not care > enough to even comment in the ml, seems like a waste of time > > Regards, marcelo > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From charles.perkins@earthlink.net Fri Jul 8 17:01:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C7A21F8B56 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:01:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pUDNdi7U9xhJ for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4DEF21F8B55 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:01:43 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=sIJXo42z1XIrJqUR86d1lCdjlIK8dwFWJTeTDb0JC8+/a3tQE/1FRDcZh35/46dg; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [138.111.58.2] (helo=[172.17.96.40]) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QfKzP-0001XJ-1i; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 20:01:43 -0400 Message-ID: <4E179A65.8070803@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 17:01:41 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hidetoshi Yokota References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> <4E17990F.6030805@kddilabs.jp> In-Reply-To: <4E17990F.6030805@kddilabs.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad86aff4f1895c6f8329d5fe7a807aa3c495350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 138.111.58.2 Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 00:01:44 -0000 Hello folks, I agree that we should have a face-to-face meeting. Perhaps we can reserve one of the meeting rooms during a time when it is not in use, or else schedule a meeting in the evening somewhere. There are several DMM drafts of interest which would benefit from discussion. Regards, Charlie P. On 7/8/2011 4:55 PM, Hidetoshi Yokota wrote: > Hi Marcelo, > > Since the agenda for IETF 81 has been fixed and the MEXT WG is not > scheduled there, it won't mean much whatever I say. My comment was > intended to describe the importance of a F2F meeting. I'll try to > encourage the discussion on the ML. > > Regards, From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Fri Jul 8 17:30:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A68411E8071; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:30:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wtB55lkbqWtT; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A1921F8793; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 2ADCB98C4E6; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:30:38 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20110709003038.2ADCB98C4E6@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mext@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [MEXT] RFC 6275 on Mobility Support in IPv6 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 00:30:38 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6275 Title: Mobility Support in IPv6 Author: C. Perkins, Ed., D. Johnson, J. Arkko Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: July 2011 Mailbox: charliep@computer.org, dbj@cs.rice.edu, jari.arkko@ericsson.com Pages: 169 Characters: 405488 Obsoletes: RFC3775 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6275.txt This document specifies Mobile IPv6, a protocol that allows nodes to remain reachable while moving around in the IPv6 Internet. Each mobile node is always identified by its home address, regardless of its current point of attachment to the Internet. While situated away from its home, a mobile node is also associated with a care-of address, which provides information about the mobile node's current location. IPv6 packets addressed to a mobile node's home address are transparently routed to its care-of address. The protocol enables IPv6 nodes to cache the binding of a mobile node's home address with its care-of address, and to then send any packets destined for the mobile node directly to it at this care-of address. To support this operation, Mobile IPv6 defines a new IPv6 protocol and a new destination option. All IPv6 nodes, whether mobile or stationary, can communicate with mobile nodes. This document obsoletes RFC 3775. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From marcelo@it.uc3m.es Fri Jul 8 23:46:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F4D21F84FB for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 23:46:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UQ6xARI0v+Eq for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 23:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E539C21F86AD for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 23:46:47 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (247.50.22.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.22.50.247]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id E923DC1BF41 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:46:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E17F951.5070104@it.uc3m.es> Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:46:41 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext@ietf.org References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> <4E17990F.6030805@kddilabs.jp> <4E179A65.8070803@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4E179A65.8070803@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18248.003 Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 06:46:48 -0000 El 09/07/11 02:01, Charles E. Perkins escribió: > > > There are several DMM drafts of interest which > would benefit from discussion. > Why don't you start by reading the drafts and commenting them in the ml? From marcelo@it.uc3m.es Fri Jul 8 23:47:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1BA21F851A for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 23:47:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.279, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LfFa7ZIC9wI6 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 23:47:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDB921F853B for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 23:47:39 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (247.50.22.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.22.50.247]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F7AC075CF for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:47:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E17F989.3040103@it.uc3m.es> Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:47:37 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext References: <20110709003038.2ADCB98C4E6@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20110709003038.2ADCB98C4E6@rfc-editor.org> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20110709003038.2ADCB98C4E6@rfc-editor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18248.003 Subject: [MEXT] Fwd: RFC 6275 on Mobility Support in IPv6 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 06:47:40 -0000 This is out. Congratulations to everyone and especially thanks to charly for editing it. -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: RFC 6275 on Mobility Support in IPv6 Fecha: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:30:38 -0700 (PDT) De: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Para: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org CC: mext@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6275 Title: Mobility Support in IPv6 Author: C. Perkins, Ed., D. Johnson, J. Arkko Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: July 2011 Mailbox: charliep@computer.org, dbj@cs.rice.edu, jari.arkko@ericsson.com Pages: 169 Characters: 405488 Obsoletes: RFC3775 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6275.txt This document specifies Mobile IPv6, a protocol that allows nodes to remain reachable while moving around in the IPv6 Internet. Each mobile node is always identified by its home address, regardless of its current point of attachment to the Internet. While situated away from its home, a mobile node is also associated with a care-of address, which provides information about the mobile node's current location. IPv6 packets addressed to a mobile node's home address are transparently routed to its care-of address. The protocol enables IPv6 nodes to cache the binding of a mobile node's home address with its care-of address, and to then send any packets destined for the mobile node directly to it at this care-of address. To support this operation, Mobile IPv6 defines a new IPv6 protocol and a new destination option. All IPv6 nodes, whether mobile or stationary, can communicate with mobile nodes. This document obsoletes RFC 3775. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Sat Jul 9 02:44:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDE321F86AB; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 02:44:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.784 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.784 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qw6SFQB+lDgx; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 02:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E5F21F86A1; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 02:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.cs.utwente.nl (janus.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.26]) by denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id p699gXIS014095; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:42:33 +0200 (MEST) Received: from 84.82.109.231 (auth. user karagian@imap1.ewi.utwente.nl) by webmail.cs.utwente.nl with HTTP; Sat, 09 Jul 2011 09:44:16 +0000 To: "Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de" , "yokota@kddilabs.jp" , "mext@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 09:44:15 +0000 X-Mailer: IlohaMail/0.8.13 (On: webmail.cs.utwente.nl) Message-ID: <7hwJ7VBC.1310204655.9477880.karagian@ewi.utwente.nl> In-Reply-To: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> From: "Georgios Karagiannis" Bounce-To: "Georgios Karagiannis" Errors-To: "Georgios Karagiannis" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]); Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:42:45 +0200 (MEST) Cc: "dmm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 09:44:15 -0000 Hi Dirk, Hi Alexandru I am also interested in having a f2f meeting in Quebec to discuss vehicular topics! As I already understood, this meeting does not need to be seen as a MEXT meeting. Best regards, Georgios On 7/4/2011, "Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de" wrote: >Dear all, >I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need mo= re discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and potentia= lly the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list. >Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in http://tools.ietf.o= rg/agenda/81/? > >Best regards >Dirk > >-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Hid= etoshi Yokota >Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 >An: mext@ietf.org >Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 > >Hi Julien and all, > >Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of >"Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to >discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got >consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting >will be needed. > >Please take a look at the following I-D: > >http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt > >Thanks in advance for your support, >-- >Hidetoshi > >(2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >> Folks, >> >> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >> >> --julien& marcelo >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >MEXT mailing list >MEXT@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >_______________________________________________ >MEXT mailing list >MEXT@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From charles.perkins@earthlink.net Sat Jul 9 08:15:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A87621F876C; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:15:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rcaTI5QK4xp; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F20E21F86BB; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:15:06 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=cWejQF9jSzE1YHVf1eTWu4Sndu4cZFxKELVvHYS6/P3Z430KIcDeFH69bE4vrxgV; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [99.51.74.16] (helo=[192.168.1.239]) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QfZFD-0008Ly-W6; Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:15:00 -0400 Message-ID: <4E187072.30902@earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:14:58 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Georgios Karagiannis References: <7hwJ7VBC.1310204655.9477880.karagian@ewi.utwente.nl> In-Reply-To: <7hwJ7VBC.1310204655.9477880.karagian@ewi.utwente.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad8673081c0946997b203c4590d055721348350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 99.51.74.16 Cc: "mext@ietf.org" , "dmm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 15:15:07 -0000 Hello folks, I think that vehicular networking discussions could be at least initiated in the [manet] working group. AODV and OLSR have been adapted for vehicular, and much more could be done there. Mesh has also been discussed in [manet]. Regards, Charlie P. On 7/9/2011 2:44 AM, Georgios Karagiannis wrote: > Hi Dirk, Hi Alexandru > > I am also interested in having a f2f meeting in Quebec to discuss > vehicular topics! > > As I already understood, this meeting does not need to be seen as a MEXT > meeting. > > Best regards, > Georgios > > On 7/4/2011, "Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de" > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list. >> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/? >> >> Best regards >> Dirk >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Hidetoshi Yokota >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 >> An: mext@ietf.org >> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 >> >> Hi Julien and all, >> >> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of >> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to >> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got >> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting >> will be needed. >> >> Please take a look at the following I-D: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt >> >> Thanks in advance for your support, >> -- >> Hidetoshi >> >> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >>> >>> --julien& marcelo >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > From rajeev.koodli@gmail.com Sat Jul 9 10:44:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B7021F88D8 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:44:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vkzrGRZMQuuE for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF45321F88D4 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so2883396pzk.31 for ; Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:44:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=jvYiK+k16mH4u47fmQE23GzevZhCvqj4Pb8jW+nbsQo=; b=QL+uOyG5K6GpO5WDP2sP9zoMuDoaMGylfkxAVcW/A4km5cikvQaIlBXBjJQSA3Th0N zcY3F2yxBfJzMBlz7vrr1VBSb9UjA8dqvs1JnnijRjpbd8rhmJWiRjnY19q59QGWzNNN EnyCi9QjDgdwmt+ngHFr4mY7w5tHdh68WipGk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.17.232 with SMTP id r8mr4827356pbd.91.1310233460510; Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.51.170 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:44:20 -0700 Message-ID: From: Rajeev Koodli To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [MEXT] MobOpts, Meeting in Quebec City X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 17:44:21 -0000 Folks, FYI.. MobOpts will be meeting in Quebec City (please see below). Among other things, this can be a good forum to discuss some "nascent" topics (see below). Regards, -Rajeev ------ Forwarded Message From: Rajeev Koodli Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:37:56 -0700 To: Cc: Suresh Krishnan Conversation: RG Status, Meeting in Quebec City Subject: RG Status, Meeting in Quebec City Hello folks, It's been a while.. I wanted to share with you a quick status update. First, RFC 6252 (Media Independent Pre-authentication Framework) was published. Congratulations to the authors and the RG! So, we have published all the outstanding documents (5 RFCs in all). Next, let me introduce Suresh Krishnan as the new co-chair of MobOpts. Suresh is keen on providing the rejuvenation the RG can benefit from, and will the lead the effort. We have had some exchange on this. The thinking is to broaden the scope of the mobility work, including (but not limited to) the following: - Investigate new mobility mechanisms and architectures, publish them as peer-reviewed publications. - Investigate privacy in mobile networks, especially with IPv6 - Investigate mobile device policy management for functions such as network discovery, congestion reporting and flow management - provide a general forum for discussing mobility studies in a larger sense such as vehicular networks, personal area networks, 4G performance studies, testbed evaluations etc. - provide a forum for discussing experimental testbeds, results and so forth. We would like to hear your thoughts. We are on the agenda for the Quebec City IETF. Please let us know if you would like to request a slot on any relevant topic. At this point, we are open for any new relevant topics. Regards, -Rajeev Koodli, Suresh Krishnan ------ End of Forwarded Message From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Sat Jul 9 22:56:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32C521F85E6; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 22:56:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.805 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.805 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3qOClWAoVV91; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 22:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A29E21F85AA; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 22:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.cs.utwente.nl (janus.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.26]) by denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id p6A5tDUv018331; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 07:55:13 +0200 (MEST) Received: from 84.82.109.231 (auth. user karagian@imap1.ewi.utwente.nl) by webmail.cs.utwente.nl with HTTP; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 05:56:58 +0000 To: "Charles E. Perkins" Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 05:56:57 +0000 X-Mailer: IlohaMail/0.8.13 (On: webmail.cs.utwente.nl) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4E187072.30902@earthlink.net> From: "Georgios Karagiannis" Bounce-To: "Georgios Karagiannis" Errors-To: "Georgios Karagiannis" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 07:55:24 +0200 (MEST) Cc: "dmm@ietf.org" , "mext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 05:56:57 -0000 Hi Charlie Thanks for the information! Best regards, Georgios On 7/9/2011, "Charles E. Perkins" wrote: > >Hello folks, > >I think that vehicular networking discussions could be >at least initiated in the [manet] working group. >AODV and OLSR have been adapted for vehicular, and >much more could be done there. Mesh has also been >discussed in [manet]. > >Regards, >Charlie P. > > >On 7/9/2011 2:44 AM, Georgios Karagiannis wrote: >> Hi Dirk, Hi Alexandru >> >> I am also interested in having a f2f meeting in Quebec to discuss >> vehicular topics! >> >> As I already understood, this meeting does not need to be seen as a MEXT >> meeting. >> >> Best regards, >> Georgios >> >> On 7/4/2011, "Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de" >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need= more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and poten= tially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list. >>> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in http://tools.iet= f.org/agenda/81/? >>> >>> Best regards >>> Dirk >>> >>> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von = Hidetoshi Yokota >>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 >>> An: mext@ietf.org >>> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 >>> >>> Hi Julien and all, >>> >>> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of >>> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to >>> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got >>> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting >>> will be needed. >>> >>> Please take a look at the following I-D: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your support, >>> -- >>> Hidetoshi >>> >>> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >>>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >>>> >>>> --julien& marcelo >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > >_______________________________________________ >MEXT mailing list >MEXT@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From yokota@kddilabs.jp Sun Jul 10 13:54:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C89621F879F for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:54:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QucmrCW7FG4W for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B3D21F87A5 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C52174827C; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:54:20 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zQY2cHcLBycb; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:53:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.145]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 509F317480FF; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:53:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) by ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043461B9B2; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:52:53 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4E1A1162.4030102@kddilabs.jp> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:53:54 +0900 From: Hidetoshi Yokota User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Charles E. Perkins" References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> <4E17990F.6030805@kddilabs.jp> <4E179A65.8070803@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4E179A65.8070803@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:54:42 -0000 Hi Charlie and all, I support your proposal. We already have a couple of interesting MEXT related topics such as: o DMM, o vehicular communications, and o network-initiated flow mobility. Since there are multiple I-Ds on these topics, we should also discuss how to move forward. Regards, -- Hidetoshi (2011/07/09 9:01), Charles E. Perkins wrote: > Hello folks, > > I agree that we should have a face-to-face meeting. > Perhaps we can reserve one of the meeting rooms during > a time when it is not in use, or else schedule a > meeting in the evening somewhere. > > There are several DMM drafts of interest which > would benefit from discussion. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > > On 7/8/2011 4:55 PM, Hidetoshi Yokota wrote: >> Hi Marcelo, >> >> Since the agenda for IETF 81 has been fixed and the MEXT WG is not >> scheduled there, it won't mean much whatever I say. My comment was >> intended to describe the importance of a F2F meeting. I'll try to >> encourage the discussion on the ML. >> >> Regards, > > > > From rkoodli@cisco.com Sat Jul 9 10:36:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2029421F86BF for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:36:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.833 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.833 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C+NRd7m6eBuj for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B4B21F858E for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:36:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rkoodli@cisco.com; l=1953; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1310232967; x=1311442567; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=gSiflJiXMHQEKRHsXCfWNpw8sf61fgVqLs2jD7R9OJo=; b=iFqvB9vPw1oeAik+Q7jL/u2RsGJxr1v0jO0rnRVM8U9Ef7MqiHhgxaIt RE7LGIH5cqyx9mxbp9sMQdvR75YoM31qFrE54B1Yff5zsUfE7LXj35cJL wlaBBqqMNqCYKKCtigRU6dqzBkTTUVVqKwoxdL1ImYNIwKv4dn/cCcrxv Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuQGADCRGE6tJXHB/2dsb2JhbABTmF+Oc3etTIEinRWGOgSHTosGhQeLYA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,504,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="1364853" Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jul 2011 17:36:07 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p69Ha7ID030986 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 17:36:07 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 9 Jul 2011 12:36:07 -0500 Received: from 10.21.89.80 ([10.21.89.80]) by XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 17:36:06 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205 Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:44:10 -0700 From: Rajeev Koodli To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: MobOpts, Meeting in Quebec City Thread-Index: AcwkpcbGUfl9b9JrwUuVyFafHjHOjgOKllTVAuPrsGY= In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jul 2011 17:36:07.0198 (UTC) FILETIME=[AF1293E0:01CC3E5E] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:41:51 -0700 Subject: [MEXT] MobOpts, Meeting in Quebec City X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 17:36:08 -0000 Folks, FYI.. MobOpts will be meeting in Quebec City (please see below). Among other things, this can be a good forum to discuss some "nascent" topics. Regards, -Rajeev ------ Forwarded Message From: Rajeev Koodli Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:37:56 -0700 To: Cc: Suresh Krishnan Conversation: RG Status, Meeting in Quebec City Subject: RG Status, Meeting in Quebec City Hello folks, It's been a while.. I wanted to share with you a quick status update. First, RFC 6252 (Media Independent Pre-authentication Framework) was published. Congratulations to the authors and the RG! So, we have published all the outstanding documents (5 RFCs in all). Next, let me introduce Suresh Krishnan as the new co-chair of MobOpts. Suresh is keen on providing the rejuvenation the RG can benefit from, and will the lead the effort. We have had some exchange on this. The thinking is to broaden the scope of the mobility work, including (but not limited to) the following: - Investigate new mobility mechanisms and architectures, publish them as peer-reviewed publications. - Investigate privacy in mobile networks, especially with IPv6 - Investigate mobile device policy management for functions such as network discovery, congestion reporting and flow management - provide a general forum for discussing mobility studies in a larger sense such as vehicular networks, personal area networks, 4G performance studies, testbed evaluations etc. - provide a forum for discussing experimental testbeds, results and so forth. We would like to hear your thoughts. We are on the agenda for the Quebec City IETF. Please let us know if you would like to request a slot on any relevant topic. At this point, we are open for any new relevant topics. Regards, -Rajeev Koodli, Suresh Krishnan ------ End of Forwarded Message From thierry.ernst@inria.fr Mon Jul 11 02:22:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4ECE21F8AC8; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:22:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fp7cgtgwxww2; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB5921F8AC3; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:22:45 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,514,1304287200"; d="vcf'?scan'208";a="112926219" Received: from dhcp-rocq-110.inria.fr ([128.93.62.110]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA; 11 Jul 2011 11:22:44 +0200 Message-ID: <4E1AC0E4.1060904@inria.fr> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:22:44 +0200 From: Thierry Ernst Organization: INRIA User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Charles E. Perkins" References: <7hwJ7VBC.1310204655.9477880.karagian@ewi.utwente.nl> <4E187072.30902@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4E187072.30902@earthlink.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------060100050603070109010102" Cc: Georgios Karagiannis , "dmm@ietf.org" , "mext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:22:46 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060100050603070109010102 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear all, I'm not sure that any WG is more relevant than any other. A number of WGs are concerned with issues related to vehicular networks. When it comes to vehicular adhoc routing protocol, yes, MANET is more relevant. When it comes to session continuity and NEMO RO, MEXT is more relevant. But there are yet other issues for which other WGs are relevant too. There will be a day where IETF will need a joint WG session to discuss all issues related to Cooperative ITS (Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems) at large, but we need a critical mass, which we don't have reached yet. There is SDOs focused on Cooperative ITS (ETSI TC ITS, ISO TC 204, ISO TC22) who are integrating and extending protocols defined by the IETF (all the IPv6 protocol suite, mobility support protocols, etc.) but they are not considering involvement at the IETF as a priority (yet) (this is why I'm not pushing for anything at the IETF right now, because it could be counter-productive). Regards, Thierry Ernst. On 09/07/11 17:14, Charles E. Perkins wrote: > > Hello folks, > > I think that vehicular networking discussions could be > at least initiated in the [manet] working group. > AODV and OLSR have been adapted for vehicular, and > much more could be done there. Mesh has also been > discussed in [manet]. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > On 7/9/2011 2:44 AM, Georgios Karagiannis wrote: >> Hi Dirk, Hi Alexandru >> >> I am also interested in having a f2f meeting in Quebec to discuss >> vehicular topics! >> >> As I already understood, this meeting does not need to be seen as a MEXT >> meeting. >> >> Best regards, >> Georgios >> >> On 7/4/2011, "Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de" >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should >>> need more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of >>> MEXT and potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex >>> on this list. >>> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in >>> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/? >>> >>> Best regards >>> Dirk >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag >>> von Hidetoshi Yokota >>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12 >>> An: mext@ietf.org >>> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81 >>> >>> Hi Julien and all, >>> >>> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of >>> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to >>> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got >>> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting >>> will be needed. >>> >>> Please take a look at the following I-D: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your support, >>> -- >>> Hidetoshi >>> >>> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote: >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require >>>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec. >>>> >>>> --julien& marcelo >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext --------------060100050603070109010102 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="thierry_ernst.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="thierry_ernst.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Thierry Ernst n:Ernst;Thierry org:INRIA - Project Team IMARA - LaRA JRU tel;work:+33 1 3963 59 30 tel;fax:+33 1 39 63 54 91 tel;cell:+33 6 76 56 25 96 url:http://www.lara.prd.fr version:2.1 end:vcard --------------060100050603070109010102-- From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Mon Jul 11 08:42:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA5EF21F8D84 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:42:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.900, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xgTX6rJMNy3E for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm21.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm21.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 40CAC21F8D5E for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.69] by nm21.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 15:42:46 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.5] by tm9.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 15:42:46 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1005.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 15:42:46 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 768779.29294.bm@omp1005.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 15834 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jul 2011 15:42:46 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1310398965; bh=tvb0J9uFNIof7ldz3D+LsspkTeJ5J4dgIPhjOFaqfxI=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Vx4UcXzCBxZF8/7Fpn0LhXi8DCjxofwjBNEKS/ZaSIYnGftPE5auwNqw/hKjV+4XCdh/QTSJ8ITq1S6INzCZyMMYiE9lTqCcEIlJgOFs8xDB+m4n626N2Pca7KzEE6Y6f5Cd/GPB8qM4MibH79JHimYf3q8nDwJyEhWDYbvVmSY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=CcauRQCMW/WXDSihZI4wBtUp3OQheDCposeimhPc5mxFBS20EZMfNeUwN+uFN4Ox0H6sN3S8XI3auroS82ZG+I+ZlsT/O3Rxd4I2jA6dlTb/ltrHTmksxK6AUYPh6OTtAnn2SRNkiXKoEaJxkx/sEWuE+ZaawTXl4sovVuwcwyc=; X-YMail-OSG: u0oran8VM1ktDA5BLl5H6_knDPsP1PsGJIkg1coHOztXtC2 ADaZFcl7B0QXEGT3AUD2X9EYEJBsGLaJj7SnyikDbVJDPyTRJqH3L8uU8UVs H4nlF0SoJsQweXu3fguEk4bGkhnXE7jN61G1E6hR5b9iDWKb7aNGe7e1TguU Ail66tIXSSbcTPwpGNVqt9LepgyrN4Ef63KtWeF0Ik1iakVv_JudbEoBNsHr s6cXWsW291iKnM9HJOQ6T24nEAs_Mjbi0piXk1qnPW9i43YXBEcX.5FU8Q4K 0dSZGtJJwCH0mXY0I96Yr8dqPe99GkFoXpAlYtFiMs.Z6Odq6k3lmol_y7us 96kXKUK2ykofaTIepIJNVYi.v_F3GcH5q1yLMOYj3r4GyeAZjfhH1YHxRXTG h1Z2rneyLrHcw Received: from [50.58.7.243] by web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:42:45 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: Message-ID: <1310398965.13493.YahooMailRC@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:42:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Rajeev Koodli , mext@ietf.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [MEXT] MobOpts, Meeting in Quebec City X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:42:50 -0000 > Folks, > > FYI.. MobOpts will be meeting in Quebec City (please see below). > Among other things, this can be a good forum to discuss some "nascent" > topics (see below). What does "nascent" mean? Regards, Behcet From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Mon Jul 11 09:17:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5D221F8DEE for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:17:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.812 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.627, BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zxmB1ponRJv3 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm5-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm5-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4892721F8DF1 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.67] by nm5.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 16:17:26 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.54] by tm7.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 16:17:26 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1054.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 16:17:26 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 427992.17516.bm@omp1054.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 5540 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jul 2011 16:17:25 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1310401045; bh=QPZKF4WZOfMyu4NZ0BVAPO5G+f35UKrnuAhBN8i+VD8=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=1v5gj6Gh6j4erjeQhrLrMtqKaJIF5Sh1xwsWphGzATLgBhiHcCuQ16+WitOgR0aD/F2JNWnBnA94bDH1d4yAjz0RqoxFNyUmWnuL8O2Mn8JzhXFlDTjwlwbljYqfGT/+3aBP1EwDzxm6zGmqU7Q45PxtwBWCAiqx2by/MqFDsRE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=zsEFTvcff7MQX2zRjuSBAfY0wrJtIbrkV0sAfxSL8N5rdj/1geBEkyvOsK6sGKVBi5siwGfnuaWm4H8gF8Fvc3AEkn17YZClOYT5MQOykRlZNlkt+tfPNNKZkMUoMnqbDftUdxIXYSRvGEnIPFGqT+E2C08n3ap0vU98wE57jrQ=; X-YMail-OSG: Gd2d13sVM1m4K34kxflKHiiXiVnCEtNtixXYcy8905ZmNrt b2Jg- Received: from [50.58.7.243] by web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:17:25 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> <4E17990F.6030805@kddilabs.jp> <4E179A65.8070803@earthlink.net> <4E17F951.5070104@it.uc3m.es> Message-ID: <1310401045.64884.YahooMailRC@web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:17:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: marcelo bagnulo braun , mext@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4E17F951.5070104@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:17:54 -0000 =0A=0AHi Marcelo,=0AAlready many discussions happened on dmm list, doesn't = that count?=0A=0ARegards,=0A=0ABehcet=0A=0A> =0A> =0A> El 09/07/11 02:01, C= harles E. Perkins escribi=F3:=0A> >=0A> >=0A> > There are several DMM draf= ts of interest which=0A> > would benefit from discussion.=0A> >=0A> =0A> W= hy don't you start by reading the drafts and commenting them in the ml?= =0A> _______________________________________________=0A> MEXT mailing list= =0A> MEXT@ietf.org=0A> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext=0A> From rkoodli@cisco.com Mon Jul 11 09:25:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF39311E80B6 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:25:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56Zbhefx+6tW for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9354F11E80AA for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:25:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rkoodli@cisco.com; l=628; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1310401534; x=1311611134; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=EfIVhthZFQJOHxUBcN1XRA64Dq7Q6RrIazSfXDfICGY=; b=QqUy3i7EZX0g2Jfuedciwwth/JfNcu39jbblgQd1c8BoKP/fRAPTyK+b TxIf0KMfDSDnJGkYC9uInWZmy0ESpTJ/EF8sktLAnrTIxxLZDDhePKGB0 ThpFrtCrPK6uMMPyvyRO1IToMqGzm+r0ZRYUAdBOk95YJBvqEt7mi1pFI 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjoHAM8iG06tJV2a/2dsb2JhbABTl3uPKHeqAp12hjoEh06LBoUHhE+HEQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,516,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="1779164" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2011 16:25:34 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com [72.163.63.9]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6BGPYH5011325; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:25:34 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:25:33 -0500 Received: from 10.21.127.163 ([10.21.127.163]) by XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:25:32 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205 Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:33:45 -0700 From: Rajeev Koodli To: Behcet Sarikaya , Rajeev Koodli , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] MobOpts, Meeting in Quebec City Thread-Index: Acw/6E1fr77h4u+Wz0C1Q3MpzUsNkw== In-Reply-To: <1310398965.13493.YahooMailRC@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2011 16:25:33.0533 (UTC) FILETIME=[287010D0:01CC3FE7] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:31:07 -0700 Subject: Re: [MEXT] MobOpts, Meeting in Quebec City X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:25:39 -0000 For our purposes here, topics that don't have an IETF specification yet. I called out some topics in the email. Regards, -Rajeev On 7/11/11 8:42 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" wrote: > > > > >> Folks, >> >> FYI.. MobOpts will be meeting in Quebec City (please see below). >> Among other things, this can be a good forum to discuss some "nascent" >> topics (see below). > > > What does "nascent" mean? > > Regards, > > Behcet > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Mon Jul 11 09:45:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1DB11E80EB for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.678 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.429, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xGWiqqP05rSZ for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C4F11E80EC for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.2) with ESMTP id p6BGjmj4028571 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:45:48 +0200 Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6BGjmZT023601 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:45:48 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com) Received: from [132.166.133.178] (is010173.intra.cea.fr [132.166.133.178]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id p6BGjlNR020958 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:45:47 +0200 Message-ID: <4E1B28BB.80008@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:45:47 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext@ietf.org References: <1310398965.13493.YahooMailRC@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1310398965.13493.YahooMailRC@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [MEXT] MobOpts, Meeting in Quebec City X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:45:55 -0000 Le 11/07/2011 17:42, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : > > > > >> Folks, >> >> FYI.. MobOpts will be meeting in Quebec City (please see below). >> Among other things, this can be a good forum to discuss some >> "nascent" topics (see below). > > > What does "nascent" mean? Sounds as issued by latin "nascere"(?) - something being conceived as we speak, to be born soon, seeds, too raw to be considered by mature WGs. But I stand corrected by wikipedians :-) Alex > > Regards, > > Behcet > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > From marcelo@it.uc3m.es Mon Jul 11 09:57:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7287921F8DF0 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:57:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.543 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xL3DxcmZsNVK for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DEB721F8DF5 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:57:33 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (149.51.22.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.22.51.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52441C1F893; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:57:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E1B2B78.1060501@it.uc3m.es> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:57:28 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Behcet Sarikaya References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> <4E17990F.6030805@kddilabs.jp> <4E179A65.8070803@earthlink.net> <4E17F951.5070104@it.uc3m.es> <1310401045.64884.YahooMailRC@web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1310401045.64884.YahooMailRC@web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18254.000 Cc: Behcet Sarikaya , mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:57:39 -0000 Hi, we are probably following different mailing lists i guess... what discussion are you referring to? Please point out any technical discussion (people reading reviewing and commenting draft of other people and these type of things...) Regards, marcelo El 11/07/11 18:17, Behcet Sarikaya escribió: > > Hi Marcelo, > Already many discussions happened on dmm list, doesn't that count? > > Regards, > > Behcet > >> >> El 09/07/11 02:01, Charles E. Perkins escribió: >>> >>> There are several DMM drafts of interest which >>> would benefit from discussion. >>> >> Why don't you start by reading the drafts and commenting them in the ml? >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Mon Jul 11 11:44:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3FD11E80A8 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:44:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.082 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.082 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_05=-1.11] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uLdBhPfJPmms for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm10-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm10-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 641CB11E8158 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:43:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.67] by nm10.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 18:43:56 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.32] by tm7.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 18:43:56 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1032.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 18:43:56 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 848341.45553.bm@omp1032.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 15640 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jul 2011 18:43:56 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1310409836; bh=/FeTPdkhPzj5vStkpPXbtS86RHTo3wLOy4AVvTUz/Pc=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=z2TJZOdoxz01f6NK8kSwZGcqOpiGhW+HOJfAT8aIBE9ShFERZVHauaFOOFKKzXLdT2MZqEVI6vZU5M0bLFJ5DGdKDYEyQUciIiJHkwfGvcLsUFh8/93SLBVC1oFAjprvdaa/Xp7tCk+WBOuUqQ2TSxy0p2hOX5Bw60vQPTsG7bE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=jRO+p/4x/NmbvXo5JmcowvQYycIQNYyLBEap2hkhrbUM9PWTZzwgOTn9dohFYUnD7w98EjXdQktVKgtFcG2oXh/xnWsuf54m2ScE1ccTnUMaPrn7ic5n5o8sl5P69qhV/GgNGeDMWAq2D3Ix4dmt38OCe9KhC4GTpPIZsxzYu7Q=; X-YMail-OSG: KSBuipEVM1m5kLSU7aFta4AJf49Bw2UQ4jAJ52ECeRG2WK3 RxQvjaIYxRsUdWfh6rN4._MtKaCq6e0kV_iscJ8SArPAndmOOCXggm28GXiu FzozGlfTMDerWX2uLr26dLxCUWW5eA_2FRuTJQSkOCD1BTHrAM0uulcDTCFv D5kut_xM07e0X7wk1mQjG_SSVOF_ScnDX68v18a1oJNt69BBm1it0MNkAkll p.sHxL1Sued0YdhFSokdQH2HnHKr5SqQNuO_VnO9kUe6_FkNzuP1dCVmkS2u e5PFWyD569N.pJrijO9LxOeADuwAsxA2S0vzUkkimLxbtM9RNJpLFjmTRBTG sTvlgFQh0.QB5W0DhuDdyOZpbFom8m7fXfDj063IOwravYEwC.jLyqeQ4Tux y7ibQNEsOd6ULyw-- Received: from [50.58.7.243] by web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:43:56 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> <4E17990F.6030805@kddilabs.jp> <4E179A65.8070803@earthlink.net> <4E17F951.5070104@it.uc3m.es> <1310401045.64884.YahooMailRC@web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1B2B78.1060501@it.uc3m.es> Message-ID: <1310409836.15625.YahooMailRC@web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:43:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: marcelo bagnulo braun In-Reply-To: <4E1B2B78.1060501@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:44:21 -0000 Hi Marcelo,=0A=0ADMM mail archive at:=0A=0Ahttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive= /web/dmm/=0A=0Ahas the record.=0A=0ARegards,=0A=0ABehcet=0A> Hi,=0A> =0A> w= e are probably following different mailing lists i guess... what =0A> discu= ssion are you referring to?=0A> =0A> Please point out any technical discus= sion (people reading reviewing and =0A> commenting draft of other people a= nd these type of things...)=0A> =0A> Regards, marcelo=0A> =0A> =0A> El 11/0= 7/11 18:17, Behcet Sarikaya escribi=F3:=0A> >=0A> > Hi Marcelo,=0A> > Alre= ady many discussions happened on dmm list, doesn't that count?=0A> >=0A> >= Regards,=0A> >=0A> > Behcet=0A> >=0A> >>=0A> >> El 09/07/11 02:01, Charl= es E. Perkins escribi=F3:=0A> >>>=0A> >>> There are several DMM drafts o= f interest which=0A> >>> would benefit from discussion.=0A> >>>=0A> >> Wh= y don't you start by reading the drafts and commenting them in the ml?= =0A> >> _______________________________________________=0A> >> MEXT mailin= g list=0A> >> MEXT@ietf.org=0A> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/= mext=0A> >>=0A> =0A> From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Mon Jul 11 12:00:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4740C1F0C34 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:00:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.531, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mUMHFn393H4J for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm13.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm13.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.90.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 89DD811E820E for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.90.55] by nm13.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 19:00:16 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.173] by tm8.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 19:00:16 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1029.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 19:00:16 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 920925.15011.bm@omp1029.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 17824 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jul 2011 19:00:16 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1310410816; bh=L2QgdmFzs72aDWQgLHzHYVwvZsXO5AX5ckRQvUKWm44=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=v8B+NwIQfSzWkuTpi4mC8vI8pd6PnryNIF6omFLGs7QGPOmfMnTfF8VOWijBWPc5SY+msu+JW3D8cIV/KUuXiIJDM53BdF29uNipVV2jCPrzvToQiw+QzU2aoIiBtsZbhGOsHCCEv9fKp4C+WXFFMOWv+RjSOhghoHRGtVSJL58= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=mmR8j59pMmHAIExzOfcPqTyNpgMoRNp5+GDYnZmFUrjDzeM/mUILFd2j5XHrM0kBn+Jx36tw6V2lFRDlhGZS3rYIR6dUvILO0iO5Mny9U+19u5aemwTppw1Rf9oGqpYUhks/fAaDL5sZxEq89xAU+WKypUnwFnFpldU9MZaA4fE=; X-YMail-OSG: e5iSHk4VM1lGq2n4QPLc4y12mDYymORmp8gYYuT2IbnrXWN deuYwl.24kNqudj2._AAS8ULs_TkXa5yqVERgOAENPv2Y4JDJI1jrcEMzztG iYIZuLXZ3b1FyRlTF5v6vvhL9x6qG_fvj.IlPiKNvia7O4sx0Y5xBZ.8GcnA bacVuV.J998V9yWJfpTkBFFo_AEDmVmydF7Iuq0G6Lyo5ynmFFvALCY8fpTe ZlZx7okYEKLpqFILPeFGLsre1V7wIcF8GvXE9CCklpePKLLAPYAm4cK7aS5D 5ojRXMdWMeuO3imRf0SlQyp5.ezNeYtmtvN97HwRIpW4hsI8PVXp653BiFq6 I0uR2PNbfyIvzAnCHLsKdwoBtSKebJADi448qMCctAtcpBEXdMvilZ_mOCxE fb3n81_.WwuK8 Received: from [50.58.7.243] by web111403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:00:16 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: Message-ID: <1310410816.87651.YahooMailRC@web111403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:00:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Rajeev Koodli , mext@ietf.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [MEXT] MobOpts, Meeting in Quebec City X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:00:45 -0000 - > > For our purposes here, topics that don't have an IETF specification yet. > I called out some topics in the email. > Thanks Rajiv. I think you listed mobility studies in vehicular networks, could be good opportunity for Alex, et al. :-) Regards, Behcet From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Mon Jul 11 12:51:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F82421F8E37 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:51:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.057 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.057 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.561, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kWUGwkb3JrWF for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58B0621F8E24 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.cs.utwente.nl (janus.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.26]) by denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id p6BJnIn8010216; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:49:18 +0200 (MEST) Received: from 84.82.109.231 (auth. user karagian@imap1.ewi.utwente.nl) by webmail.cs.utwente.nl with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:51:04 +0000 To: "Rajeev Koodli" , "mext@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:51:04 +0000 X-Mailer: IlohaMail/0.8.13 (On: webmail.cs.utwente.nl) Message-ID: <4ffTKfjY.1310413864.5912460.karagian@ewi.utwente.nl> In-Reply-To: From: "Georgios Karagiannis" Bounce-To: "Georgios Karagiannis" Errors-To: "Georgios Karagiannis" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:49:29 +0200 (MEST) Subject: Re: [MEXT] MobOpts, Meeting in Quebec City X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:51:07 -0000 Hi Rajeev, >- provide a general forum for discussing mobility studies in a larger sense >such as vehicular networks, personal area networks, 4G performance studies, >testbed evaluations etc. Thanks! This is good to know! Best regards, Georgios On 7/11/2011, "Rajeev Koodli" wrote: > >Folks, > >FYI.. MobOpts will be meeting in Quebec City (please see below). >Among other things, this can be a good forum to discuss some "nascent" >topics. > >Regards, > >-Rajeev > >------ Forwarded Message >From: Rajeev Koodli >Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:37:56 -0700 >To: >Cc: Suresh Krishnan >Conversation: RG Status, Meeting in Quebec City >Subject: RG Status, Meeting in Quebec City > > >Hello folks, > >It's been a while.. I wanted to share with you a quick status update. > >First, RFC 6252 (Media Independent Pre-authentication Framework) was >published. Congratulations to the authors and the RG! So, we have published >all the outstanding documents (5 RFCs in all). > >Next, let me introduce Suresh Krishnan as the new co-chair of MobOpts. >Suresh is keen on providing the rejuvenation the RG can benefit from, and >will the lead the effort. > >We have had some exchange on this. The thinking is to broaden the scope of >the mobility work, including (but not limited to) the following: > >- Investigate new mobility mechanisms and architectures, publish them as >peer-reviewed publications. > >- Investigate privacy in mobile networks, especially with IPv6 > >- Investigate mobile device policy management for functions such as network >discovery, congestion reporting and flow management > >- provide a general forum for discussing mobility studies in a larger sense >such as vehicular networks, personal area networks, 4G performance studies, >testbed evaluations etc. > >- provide a forum for discussing experimental testbeds, results and so >forth. > >We would like to hear your thoughts. > >We are on the agenda for the Quebec City IETF. Please let us know if you >would like to request a slot on any relevant topic. At this point, we are >open for any new relevant topics. > >Regards, > >-Rajeev Koodli, Suresh Krishnan > > > > > > >------ End of Forwarded Message > >_______________________________________________ >MEXT mailing list >MEXT@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From marcelo@it.uc3m.es Mon Jul 11 13:43:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4259611E8243 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:43:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L9vzbaPKTEnr for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196C311E8241 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:43:57 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (149.51.22.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.22.51.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0182875A7CC; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:43:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E1B607A.9050405@it.uc3m.es> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:43:38 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Behcet Sarikaya References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> <4E17990F.6030805@kddilabs.jp> <4E179A65.8070803@earthlink.net> <4E17F951.5070104@it.uc3m.es> <1310401045.64884.YahooMailRC@web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1B2B78.1060501@it.uc3m.es> <1310409836.15625.YahooMailRC@web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1310409836.15625.YahooMailRC@web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18254.000 Cc: Behcet Sarikaya , mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:43:58 -0000 So, we are following a different mailing list! Please discuss mext related topics in the mext ml. El 11/07/11 20:43, Behcet Sarikaya escribió: > Hi Marcelo, > > DMM mail archive at: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/ > > has the record. > > Regards, > > Behcet >> Hi, >> >> we are probably following different mailing lists i guess... what >> discussion are you referring to? >> >> Please point out any technical discussion (people reading reviewing and >> commenting draft of other people and these type of things...) >> >> Regards, marcelo >> >> >> El 11/07/11 18:17, Behcet Sarikaya escribió: >>> Hi Marcelo, >>> Already many discussions happened on dmm list, doesn't that count? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Behcet >>> >>>> El 09/07/11 02:01, Charles E. Perkins escribió: >>>>> There are several DMM drafts of interest which >>>>> would benefit from discussion. >>>>> >>>> Why don't you start by reading the drafts and commenting them in the ml? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >> From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Mon Jul 11 13:47:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD4BE21F8C3D for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:47:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ch+BOXfoEXVv for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC36921F8E5F for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh104.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.30]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p6BKlkXs021742; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:47:47 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:47:45 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-005.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.60) by NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:47:45 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-023.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.56]) by 008-AM1MMR1-005.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.60]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.002; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:47:45 +0200 From: To: , Thread-Topic: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 Thread-Index: AQHMOyy7i/WHPsvngUagE6qtUCqCxpTe3HSAgABek4CAAKZ6gIAAYVEAgAK6eICAAAGYgIAAcSiAgAPEH4CAAAsxAIAAHb8AgAAhcgCAACKJYA== Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:47:44 +0000 Message-ID: <21E7D9BD69CC7241AAE00F4EA183B719073755@008-AM1MPN1-023.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> <4E17990F.6030805@kddilabs.jp> <4E179A65.8070803@earthlink.net> <4E17F951.5070104@it.uc3m.es> <1310401045.64884.YahooMailRC@web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1B2B78.1060501@it.uc3m.es> <1310409836.15625.YahooMailRC@web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1B607A.9050405@it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: <4E1B607A.9050405@it.uc3m.es> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.42] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2011 20:47:45.0662 (UTC) FILETIME=[C98471E0:01CC400B] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com, mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:47:59 -0000 DMM was approved as part of the MEXT charter. Why is there a separate discu= ssion list? -----Original Message----- From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext= marcelo bagnulo braun Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:44 PM To: Behcet Sarikaya Cc: Behcet Sarikaya; mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 So, we are following a different mailing list! Please discuss mext related topics in the mext ml. El 11/07/11 20:43, Behcet Sarikaya escribi=F3: > Hi Marcelo, > > DMM mail archive at: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/ > > has the record. > > Regards, > > Behcet >> Hi, >> >> we are probably following different mailing lists i guess... what=20 >> discussion are you referring to? >> >> Please point out any technical discussion (people reading reviewing=20 >> and commenting draft of other people and these type of things...) >> >> Regards, marcelo >> >> >> El 11/07/11 18:17, Behcet Sarikaya escribi=F3: >>> Hi Marcelo, >>> Already many discussions happened on dmm list, doesn't that count? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Behcet >>> >>>> El 09/07/11 02:01, Charles E. Perkins escribi=F3: >>>>> There are several DMM drafts of interest which would benefit =20 >>>>> from discussion. >>>>> >>>> Why don't you start by reading the drafts and commenting them in the= ml? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From marcelo@it.uc3m.es Mon Jul 11 13:52:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC7A11E80C7 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:52:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.554 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jbPYy8sMhS+5 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAB211E809E for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:52:36 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (149.51.22.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.22.51.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C4E9875C6A; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:52:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E1B627C.708@it.uc3m.es> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:52:12 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> <4E17990F.6030805@kddilabs.jp> <4E179A65.8070803@earthlink.net> <4E17F951.5070104@it.uc3m.es> <1310401045.64884.YahooMailRC@web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1B2B78.1060501@it.uc3m.es> <1310409836.15625.YahooMailRC@web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1B607A.9050405@it.uc3m.es> <21E7D9BD69CC7241AAE00F4EA183B719073755@008-AM1MPN1-023.mgdnok.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <21E7D9BD69CC7241AAE00F4EA183B719073755@008-AM1MPN1-023.mgdnok.nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18254.000 Cc: behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com, mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:52:37 -0000 exactly! El 11/07/11 22:47, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com escribió: > DMM was approved as part of the MEXT charter. Why is there a separate discussion list? > > -----Original Message----- > From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext marcelo bagnulo braun > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:44 PM > To: Behcet Sarikaya > Cc: Behcet Sarikaya; mext@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 > > So, we are following a different mailing list! > > Please discuss mext related topics in the mext ml. > > > > El 11/07/11 20:43, Behcet Sarikaya escribió: >> Hi Marcelo, >> >> DMM mail archive at: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/ >> >> has the record. >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >>> Hi, >>> >>> we are probably following different mailing lists i guess... what >>> discussion are you referring to? >>> >>> Please point out any technical discussion (people reading reviewing >>> and commenting draft of other people and these type of things...) >>> >>> Regards, marcelo >>> >>> >>> El 11/07/11 18:17, Behcet Sarikaya escribió: >>>> Hi Marcelo, >>>> Already many discussions happened on dmm list, doesn't that count? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Behcet >>>> >>>>> El 09/07/11 02:01, Charles E. Perkins escribió: >>>>>> There are several DMM drafts of interest which would benefit >>>>>> from discussion. >>>>>> >>>>> Why don't you start by reading the drafts and commenting them in the ml? >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>> > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Mon Jul 11 14:59:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C27F11E82DC for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:59:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.379, BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4h6Di+iro76x for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm3-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm3-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.90.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A190311E826E for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.65] by nm3.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 21:59:45 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.10] by tm5.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 21:59:45 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1010.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2011 21:59:45 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 709805.99566.bm@omp1010.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 84235 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jul 2011 21:59:45 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1310421585; bh=2QisFd4xWEfmvzGOJ4Dtt8HNyazGfLIfeFsliLcb4Rk=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=raygJ4G9wp6G3tulIGw3qLRKkiga8YCM9ArBaSuEvBbWzugP8pe+w5NT3OwnxwYwurd/y6o+0TBUxQPNi1K8zdp9ywbJ/3yD/BSv+bfuaOmPVZkORnqdDxBpB7ziJpzxNSYePp7NYG+1ZxerjFKVI3TI72865gYAdqGITAFui08= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=6CoCG28BFPATuhuP3g0AkHPYRs8na3KcI7ErDhc4cP+TetqJTEn7diBx8cy3wx94Ovhgiz2m/lu3t03GLzErXUc67OHkKBjKOb8pL+7xTP9htkWMyKb1w4Ub73Zz1TgYVLqRpwx/tR8ULomEqfTeYUhjq1yhT2o8CHwQb19GQX4=; X-YMail-OSG: .bmNn2wVM1miG6cnvPZ5deSvSqEYsTo4HGORFm9U8twi3.j 7DXywbQN_JLdLOkFmSdIu.Lrsdj0UJzfrx_oPg3GjCmKwD.Ey4POGt74FjZO fm.qxAfHW0mL3NkAXhPc_fGIQLGy.MCcETNpfzubI6T.TLrBUxOmhDH5.ucc GZ_3kvbEhlclHX7BrQTaiX4FsdzIFtHUSL._mw9B5hPU47xXCmk7mbXaAoFm 4rEHtbif4kIt3637.Xrr620ef_HuOUHbEt0tDeqGpMqLWgoTA.46_teUKpm_ U04wgmwZFey99McgqlDJNi_bm5waQ3gaUP7V.CrA3HDYC7fuQlKutwL2tHB5 tHTxKLz8Uwdz8GFujeaDapx805Ngc7uF.hskYxVvJjTg6L3BN7LeMT43qRQ1 bgqlUyhMQgTiB Received: from [50.58.7.243] by web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:59:44 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> <4E17990F.6030805@kddilabs.jp> <4E179A65.8070803@earthlink.net> <4E17F951.5070104@it.uc3m.es> <1310401045.64884.YahooMailRC@web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1B2B78.1060501@it.uc3m.es> <1310409836.15625.YahooMailRC@web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1B607A.9050405@it.uc3m.es> <21E7D9BD69CC7241AAE00F4EA183B719073755@008-AM1MPN1-023.mgdnok.nokia.com> Message-ID: <1310421584.56031.YahooMailRC@web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:59:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com, marcelo@it.uc3m.es In-Reply-To: <21E7D9BD69CC7241AAE00F4EA183B719073755@008-AM1MPN1-023.mgdnok.nokia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:59:47 -0000 > DMM was approved as part of the MEXT charter. Why is there a separate >discussion list? Ask this to Charlie. Anyways, the discussion later on moved to the mext list. BTW Julien is on dmm list :-) Behcet From julien.ietf@gmail.com Mon Jul 11 19:01:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50EE711E8412 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:01:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cnlQQfDH4w91 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2B511E83FE for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwb17 with SMTP id 17so4300104bwb.31 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:01:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=X8BvCjRKF0t0uXqitUNa7zpXpsfl3v3gL4VQSwja7bM=; b=XdvkQVlTHiiM7HXmruYHbcqV1h2Luc0Yskp8IJ5R1IZhtz4HrqI9qbmvQvYxtaLkZ4 TghETc+YA7Z+ULuEddcces+f6DRx/5lVPHJB7zLQSpw3VwcWhkNVTKrdJEotC0R/L/0L 0v4kybADCxP91Ms4btaiIJaf46/oZIdddfQPo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.127.156 with SMTP id g28mr2864331bks.114.1310436102496; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.62.77 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:01:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1310421584.56031.YahooMailRC@web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <4E093873.1050201@kddilabs.jp> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25B851A83A@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <4E142285.4080400@kddilabs.jp> <4E14FD81.4040002@kddilabs.jp> <4E154F24.3090600@it.uc3m.es> <4E17990F.6030805@kddilabs.jp> <4E179A65.8070803@earthlink.net> <4E17F951.5070104@it.uc3m.es> <1310401045.64884.YahooMailRC@web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1B2B78.1060501@it.uc3m.es> <1310409836.15625.YahooMailRC@web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1B607A.9050405@it.uc3m.es> <21E7D9BD69CC7241AAE00F4EA183B719073755@008-AM1MPN1-023.mgdnok.nokia.com> <1310421584.56031.YahooMailRC@web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:01:42 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Behcet Sarikaya Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: mext@ietf.org, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] IETF-81 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:01:44 -0000 On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > > > >> DMM was approved as part of the MEXT charter. Why is there a separate >>discussion list? > > > Ask this to Charlie. > > Anyways, the discussion later on moved to the mext list. > BTW Julien is on dmm list :-) Yes, I subscribed, aongst other things to make it possible to tell people on that other list (DMM) that MEXT topics should IMHO be discussed on the MEXT mailing list if people are expecting to progress work that impact MEXT protocols: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg00087.html --julien From marcelo@it.uc3m.es Wed Jul 13 00:49:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6408621F8B40 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:49:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cspo7OZrtOJo for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C70B21F8B20 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:49:03 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (wlap005.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D5D71558F for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:49:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E1D4DEC.2060103@it.uc3m.es> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:49:00 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18256.003 Subject: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:49:08 -0000 This note issues the WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09. Please send your comments before the 1st of august. You can find the draft at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 Regards, marcelo From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Wed Jul 13 08:29:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B0511E8113 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:29:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.533 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.534, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yORXxU+4R31e for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm9-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm9-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.196]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A45511E80F8 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.63] by nm9.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jul 2011 15:29:04 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.56] by tm3.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jul 2011 15:29:04 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1056.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jul 2011 15:29:04 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 369593.19953.bm@omp1056.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 46270 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Jul 2011 15:29:03 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1310570943; bh=IawQd1AQayGVBu8tfK/TfkN7zs8jVxMrf/Ak3T6I5mQ=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=no05+8IuJ4KUQ0Didt4H3FXtsrshfjKXEphYb+gVAaKTkEKlS6G3itlHMyRVHuzUKJNWfWL51buOWjmG64ao5S1y6PRXAwt7IdKY3imTqXA+Ipr93k8K0xZmAZKHf8RDEjZiQyAxUBetQpn/CF1xSj5gEvinibB1rIw+OZnQNUs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=fcJjoqkG0L3E/l/pdSYYwl29iijQU7k2V6iGYJkqypBLj7l7oJrNQiVXtHw6kCvM6VT89BpBZMhqckoWYvQcq2T2rUQUWtZR8CImLeQezyxRcCq6Tk6V+cGcApNMU63qC4MCghFt3VmT5C3GoAl2T32bX6wAJ6QodGOUAzFiFCY=; X-YMail-OSG: MKxuti8VM1nrN6Uph8J.pWrmqhEXcpEJPrFp5In5xHx_Eg6 AO2r5Bog4jlh_LgUjV8YwMKOMNvc8XiKXMtmCdv6PT60Fm88Wquop7pf8JAV hL.3rWiEhvX1fGRsDjEX0SrnSUiHQGfc36qwaSfizttd8xEoql.n1hnOe7Yi NrUCJdJUDRFThChoYH9NIaW_S1r8CqthG1qkS1c2G2r0TBu3JvV4cBxmJZl0 dXe5i0y9kPugnUs13o.32_fNofSrrM7QGYOm3FRu6yzgjOQXqILCZCJcAhRI EADnj2Ii.Lxe37dIeAG7Pr9XeCYRQxY8eocLniURb6EqyDN.p9VSZCmoOSxS eakYbJeTHX7c6lZLV32QFskGmccAwMInxmkM0X8XGmppJZ2O8x70A6f4WxPO SeuiKTCP1vvv3.A-- Received: from [50.58.7.243] by web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:29:03 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: <4E1D4DEC.2060103@it.uc3m.es> Message-ID: <1310570943.43371.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:29:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: marcelo bagnulo braun , mext In-Reply-To: <4E1D4DEC.2060103@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:29:04 -0000 I support advancing this document. Regards, Behcet > This note issues the WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09. > > Please send your comments before the 1st of august. > > You can find the draft at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 > > Regards, marcelo > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > From marcelo@it.uc3m.es Wed Jul 13 09:12:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A1C11E8142 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:12:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.558 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SHBQjqUJuQg0 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DCF311E80A8 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:12:34 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (149.51.22.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.22.51.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C2A87DF57; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:12:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E1DC3ED.8060904@it.uc3m.es> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:12:29 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Behcet Sarikaya References: <4E1D4DEC.2060103@it.uc3m.es> <1310570943.43371.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1310570943.43371.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18258.000 Cc: Behcet Sarikaya , mext Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:12:35 -0000 That is nice, but it would be much more useful a thorough review of the document and comments in the ml of how it can improved. Regards, marcelo El 13/07/11 17:29, Behcet Sarikaya escribió: > I support advancing this document. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > >> This note issues the WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09. >> >> Please send your comments before the 1st of august. >> >> You can find the draft at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 >> >> Regards, marcelo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Wed Jul 13 09:20:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0494811E8103 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:20:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.865 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.865 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aUbBkGSSZVw3 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm24-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm24-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5010411E80FE for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.90.57] by nm24.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jul 2011 16:20:31 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.162] by tm10.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jul 2011 16:20:31 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1018.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jul 2011 16:20:31 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 677933.85800.bm@omp1018.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 1366 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Jul 2011 16:20:30 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1310574030; bh=fbNKGYaof9NBjsJfGaiLL/+tA3LTHMtW1S/vprYkCII=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=XIDn4Lld0U1Lwb50LYoOZMmB3NZN3g1EVj6DvtBQ1QBWvXmit1AVlom8s+S4iNLlOQU0lnRzSSQK/Z3d2+oQDgFWlH7Dc8008+NVQTygaLqsyGgghciIFXKEPEt6wF6t0jcEQ8yLAZ+0sO2BOX1iimgiY+OMBAjxFM/A2kFFvp0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=YSd+xWQzrHcV9F8vvQW/h5sfB5dXBxc2BTf/OarqWWA4/AKDZT1pAkvpaSBQZld2bLZhK9XxeDU0CuA1vpzkcmc5NOw5ia0Mhd7xloL03jTERWyffEfCWyctecn4uvWcISNeUkI+WFpMUhyiAUPazf0VJeWjDDzjkbcIDylEYh0=; X-YMail-OSG: 8xfGtv8VM1l93DiDNDsx3u8z7NM4h620do7xJBMiV9HYqCz 07pV60S.WkGg0yWw_WRZnSPw6BYmXwXmx5p_q8dB_i65vg.LqBptgqDrgLG4 xNFLiRTYQ3ME5EJN.YlLlmnAqsNtVenplfzt4XcTBYFHHnffQFf1PAklpArP qrFnPGas5J7C__63Kt6arLshqfb_aKEtb.W1tI0QspS8t3qOX4Zq9Uvknmuf KmCqV5I85Qt7o61gf9iyrppkwNCiZTBJsZQqMriKMg7_4K.agjNJDjGrLLy0 OM6gRi.hwyH2TWuZN1g58z2V4cWOXpCGyelA2ASRwZ9cjPBpnqoUlKL_RkFa G_bUZeub3OQ6NmRi64qHdJkzlNxCBYyPc7AX1l.BlpKpcKQRJ8RBXUcua93_ jhxGg4jMAs5lntQ-- Received: from [50.58.7.243] by web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:20:30 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: <4E1D4DEC.2060103@it.uc3m.es> <1310570943.43371.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1DC3ED.8060904@it.uc3m.es> Message-ID: <1310574030.47552.YahooMailRC@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:20:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: marcelo bagnulo braun In-Reply-To: <4E1DC3ED.8060904@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mext Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:20:33 -0000 Marcelo, this draft has been reviewed in depth so many times and the curren= t =0Aversion is in a very good shape.=0A=0ATake my word for it because I am= one of the authors :-).=0A=0ARegards,=0A=0ABehcet=0A=0A> That is nice, but= it would be much more useful a thorough review of the =0A> document and co= mments in the ml of how it can improved.=0A> =0A> Regards, marcelo=0A> =0A= > =0A> El 13/07/11 17:29, Behcet Sarikaya escribi=F3:=0A> > I support adva= ncing this document.=0A> >=0A> > Regards,=0A> >=0A> > Behcet=0A> >=0A> >= =0A> >> This note issues the WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09.=0A= > >>=0A> >> Please send your comments before the 1st of august.=0A> >>=0A= > >> You can find the draft at:=0A> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-= ietf-mip6-hareliability-09=0A> >>=0A> >> Regards, marcelo=0A> >>=0A> >> = _______________________________________________=0A> >> MEXT mailing list= =0A> >> MEXT@ietf.org=0A> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext=0A>= >>=0A> =0A> From marcelo@it.uc3m.es Wed Jul 13 09:28:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EFB811E8156 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:28:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hD7m5-RhN2OE for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB63211E8154 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:28:06 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (149.51.22.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.22.51.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE30732017; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:28:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E1DC794.1080502@it.uc3m.es> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:28:04 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Behcet Sarikaya References: <4E1D4DEC.2060103@it.uc3m.es> <1310570943.43371.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1DC3ED.8060904@it.uc3m.es> <1310574030.47552.YahooMailRC@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1310574030.47552.YahooMailRC@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18258.000 Cc: Behcet Sarikaya , mext Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:28:07 -0000 So, let me rephrase then, support from the authors is nice, but it would be much more useful to have through reviews of the document. Regards, marcelo El 13/07/11 18:20, Behcet Sarikaya escribió: > Marcelo, this draft has been reviewed in depth so many times and the current > version is in a very good shape. > > Take my word for it because I am one of the authors :-). > > Regards, > > Behcet > >> That is nice, but it would be much more useful a thorough review of the >> document and comments in the ml of how it can improved. >> >> Regards, marcelo >> >> >> El 13/07/11 17:29, Behcet Sarikaya escribió: >>> I support advancing this document. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Behcet >>> >>> >>>> This note issues the WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09. >>>> >>>> Please send your comments before the 1st of august. >>>> >>>> You can find the draft at: >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 >>>> >>>> Regards, marcelo >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >> From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Wed Jul 13 11:33:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA7611E80B2 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:33:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.042 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_05=-1.11] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SUjiBX0HdfSs for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:33:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm4.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm4.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3A75C11E80B1 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.70] by nm4.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jul 2011 18:33:39 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.7] by tm10.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jul 2011 18:33:39 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1007.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Jul 2011 18:33:39 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 564899.29518.bm@omp1007.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 75037 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Jul 2011 18:33:39 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1310582018; bh=hisJykqREbeiXzSHN8nRtQHk1/xy8uwb0fDiMDbnerw=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=fR+8mM1f+RMy1CR80GAc7OFEDL3MfcOjJlCfT3MtuHzmxLuGojkCl4EkykOzTNlHcdFVKHjI79bQ7TEob7ZDIJxwouh7XgMoArBDhFjgs6skLSdU9tlydHBKGzOAFm17y9yaiv8drbc3ZmOT6qvN9lbeo5F651NmY+EZPVNT18E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=D9va1UgEl7aE44e3cN99ZMPFs2EsN81ZOa7je4/VdhKymNbV3y6GS7LpP1ib2/56titSatAx++9al28JPSAArhib2Xf971lKd0sKUxEUvH9wpwBB4lOqMjHhuGEacT7uWsCEh9kSAJxlJYjaiKqbDmBEuIwAur/YFzjYtlvmSAs=; X-YMail-OSG: 2QUWOw4VM1lO62RyclsCLA.nk5zJ8hEHjo2Q3SafM_EoHcn j.ayft.ocU.cYydISsnMlfQSVswHeWtSDFpLRGcGap7vsdKENcJZELsHk_CG PHTfRxYgycYQMBjd1YX1wCp8qI_KItK9Bj.duB5DstfDp.c4WtncAdHD4Ts3 XE0D2AlHcCT3PwjT9rP2NI53HJpDgDq1XVI7FpSFMN35tVa_8YAVATkMrTKr w97RmfVHJQ.2uzkQS.UM_T2uo2OTc38NBkHYY9t0IYcph7ZYbDeq1brpEfyR LzWvSxCwNYjlgSgS9watPy7efVBLXa4..s2AuAtxpN4CJwk8kvoDcaCFTuZX t_OrtXwuRdVvOq50zGI_4p3cGE6vxt86tYC.dUNuce2a92rJsNO7hzbPJxdy fd4TPPk.Gtr4w9A-- Received: from [50.58.7.243] by web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:33:38 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: <4E1D4DEC.2060103@it.uc3m.es> <1310570943.43371.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1DC3ED.8060904@it.uc3m.es> <1310574030.47552.YahooMailRC@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1DC794.1080502@it.uc3m.es> Message-ID: <1310582018.73605.YahooMailRC@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:33:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: marcelo bagnulo braun In-Reply-To: <4E1DC794.1080502@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mext Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:33:45 -0000 =0A=0A=0A=0A> So, let me rephrase then, support from the authors is nice, b= ut it would =0A> be much more useful to have through reviews of the docume= nt.=0A=0A=0A=0ADid we have a chair's review?=0A=0AJust asking.=0A=0Abehcet= =0A=0A> =0A> Regards, marcelo=0A> =0A> =0A> El 13/07/11 18:20, Behcet Sari= kaya escribi=F3:=0A> > Marcelo, this draft has been reviewed in depth so m= any times and the =0Acurrent=0A> > version is in a very good shape.=0A> >= =0A> > Take my word for it because I am one of the authors :-).=0A> >=0A> = > Regards,=0A> >=0A> > Behcet=0A> >=0A> >> That is nice, but it would be m= uch more useful a thorough review of the=0A> >> document and comments in t= he ml of how it can improved.=0A> >>=0A> >> Regards, marcelo=0A> >>=0A> = >>=0A> >> El 13/07/11 17:29, Behcet Sarikaya escribi=F3:=0A> >>> I suppor= t advancing this document.=0A> >>>=0A> >>> Regards,=0A> >>>=0A> >>> Be= hcet=0A> >>>=0A> >>>=0A> >>>> This note issues the WGLC for draft-ietf-m= ip6-hareliability-09.=0A> >>>>=0A> >>>> Please send your comments before= the 1st of august.=0A> >>>>=0A> >>>> You can find the draft at:=0A> >>= >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09=0A> >>>>= =0A> >>>> Regards, marcelo=0A> >>>>=0A> >>>> _______________________= ________________________=0A> >>>> MEXT mailing list=0A> >>>> MEXT@ietf.o= rg=0A> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext=0A> >>>>=0A> >>=0A> = =0A> From marcelo@it.uc3m.es Wed Jul 13 11:59:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B146D11E80E5 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:59:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tLEvLQQcZgmm for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A7C11E80AF for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:59:04 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (149.51.22.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.22.51.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 392787173B3; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:59:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E1DEAF5.5050704@it.uc3m.es> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:59:01 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Behcet Sarikaya References: <4E1D4DEC.2060103@it.uc3m.es> <1310570943.43371.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1DC3ED.8060904@it.uc3m.es> <1310574030.47552.YahooMailRC@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1DC794.1080502@it.uc3m.es> <1310582018.73605.YahooMailRC@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1310582018.73605.YahooMailRC@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18258.000 Cc: Behcet Sarikaya , mext Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:59:05 -0000 The document will be reviewed by the document shepherd as defined by the process, before shipping it to the iesg, as any other mext document. El 13/07/11 20:33, Behcet Sarikaya escribió: > > > >> So, let me rephrase then, support from the authors is nice, but it would >> be much more useful to have through reviews of the document. > > > Did we have a chair's review? > > Just asking. > > behcet > >> Regards, marcelo >> >> >> El 13/07/11 18:20, Behcet Sarikaya escribió: >>> Marcelo, this draft has been reviewed in depth so many times and the > current >>> version is in a very good shape. >>> >>> Take my word for it because I am one of the authors :-). >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Behcet >>> >>>> That is nice, but it would be much more useful a thorough review of the >>>> document and comments in the ml of how it can improved. >>>> >>>> Regards, marcelo >>>> >>>> >>>> El 13/07/11 17:29, Behcet Sarikaya escribió: >>>>> I support advancing this document. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Behcet >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This note issues the WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please send your comments before the 1st of august. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can find the draft at: >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, marcelo >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>>> >> From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Wed Jul 13 14:40:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC5EB11E8120 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:40:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 59RGyp9+sRxb for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5772B11E8102 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh101.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.22]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p6DLeRaG030690 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:40:28 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:40:22 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-006.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.61) by NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:40:09 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-023.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.56]) by 008-AM1MMR1-006.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.61]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.002; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:40:09 +0200 From: To: Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHMQB+/vTiCYkVQrE2OABRQFeV53pTqVUQA Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:40:08 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110711231010.13030.61009.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.28] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <278152AA872C7C4EB9A8F58FCF3B37B8@nokia.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jul 2011 21:40:22.0266 (UTC) FILETIME=[77D37DA0:01CC41A5] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:40:30 -0000 We have posted a new version of the I-D. This does not incorporate the review comments from Julien L., Kent Leung, Stefano Faccin and Jouni Korhonen. We hope to do that in Rev 3 of the I-D in the next few weeks. -Raj On 7/11/11 6:10 PM, "ext internet-drafts@ietf.org" wrote: >A new version of I-D, draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt has been successfully >submitted by Basavaraj Patil and posted to the IETF repository. > >Filename: draft-bajko-mext-sod >Revision: 02 >Title: Security on Demand for Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile >IPv6 >Creation date: 2011-07-12 >WG ID: Individual Submission >Number of pages: 9 > >Abstract: > Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile IPv6 protocols require the > signaling messages between the mobile node and home agent to be > secured. However security for the user plane/traffic is optional and > is a choice left to the mobile node. This document proposes > extensions to Mobile IPv6 signaling which enables the user plane > traffic to be secured on a need or on-demand basis. The mobile node > or the home agent can request at any time security for the user plane > traffic. Security for user plane traffic can be triggered as a > result of policy or, mobility or, at the user's choice. > > =20 From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Wed Jul 13 18:11:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CBA51F0C38; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:11:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oOzH2SvHevgY; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848461F0C34; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id AF0F298C535; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:58:10 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20110714005811.AF0F298C535@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mext@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [MEXT] RFC 6276 on DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for Network Mobility (NEMO) X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:11:54 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6276 Title: DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for Network Mobility (NEMO) Author: R. Droms, P. Thubert, F. Dupont, W. Haddad, C. Bernardos Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: July 2011 Mailbox: rdroms@cisco.com, pthubert@cisco.com, fdupont@isc.org, Wassim.Haddad@ericsson.com, cjbc@it.uc3m.es Pages: 14 Characters: 30430 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-07.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6276.txt One aspect of network mobility support is the assignment of a prefix or prefixes to a mobile router for use on the links in the mobile network. This document specifies how DHCPv6 prefix delegation can be used for this configuration task. The mobile router plays the role of requesting router, while the home agent assumes the role of delegating router. When the mobile router is outside its home network, the mobile router also assumes the role of DHCPv6 relay agent, co-located with the requesting router function. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Thu Jul 14 08:31:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C9121F8787; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:31:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ohR5dEMk-UNZ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3679721F8753; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he111629.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.21]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 14 Jul 2011 17:28:37 +0200 Received: from HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.4.206]) by HE111629.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:28:23 +0200 From: To: , Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:28:21 +0200 Thread-Topic: [dmm] novel research article about DMM Thread-Index: AcxCE5As9/JDVdBNRROMeMB5aX96rgAJujOA Message-ID: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032HE113484emea1_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: netext@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] novel research article about DMM X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:31:29 -0000 --_000_05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032HE113484emea1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear goodzi, from the abstract and figures available at the links you provided it seems = to me that PMIP and HIP achieve scores of +/- 1 regarding deployment, secur= ity, performance, and objective (whatever this means) ('nearly same perform= ance, but HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under evaluation crit= eria due to stronger security and fewer functional modules to deploy') - bu= t I can't draw any conclusions for further extensions ... especially toward= s various DMM proposals as outlined in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 or/and http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-00.txt Would it be possible to extend your analysis method also to such new approa= ches under discussion? Best regards Dirk ________________________________ Von: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Boko= r Laszlo Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juli 2011 12:45 An: dmm Betreff: [dmm] novel research article about DMM Dear Folks, please let me advertise you a research paper in the area of DMM and future = flat mobile networks: Title: Evaluation of two integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra Flat A= rchitecture using SIP, IEEE 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols ACM link: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3D1975468 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005 I hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you will = provide us with feedbacks on our work. Best regards, goodzi -- L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK) Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307 web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl --_000_05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032HE113484emea1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear goodzi,
from the abstract and figures available at the = links you=20 provided it seems to me that PMIP and HIP achieve scores of +/- 1 regarding= =20 deployment, security, performance, and objective (whatever this means)=20 (= 'nearly same performance, = but=20 HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under evaluation criteria due t= o=20 stronger security and fewer functional modules to deploy')=20 - but I can't draw = any=20 conclusions for further extensions ... especially towards various DMM propo= sals=20 as outlined in

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 

or/and

http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-0= 0.txt

Would it be possible to extend your analysis met= hod=20 also to such new=20 approaches under discussion?
 
Best regards
Dirk

Von: dmm-bounces@ietf.org=20 [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Bokor=20 Laszlo
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juli 2011 12:45
An:=20 dmm
Betreff: [dmm] novel research article about=20 DMM

Dear Folks,

please let me advertise you a research paper = in=20 the area of DMM and future flat mobile networks:

Title: Evaluation o= f two=20 integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra Flat Architecture using SIP, IE= EE=20 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols
ACM link: http://portal.acm.= org/citation.cfm?id=3D1975468
DOI:=20 http://dx.doi.org/1= 0.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005

I=20 hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you will pr= ovide=20 us with feedbacks on our work.

Best=20 regards,
goodzi

--
L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR
Budapest University of= =20 Technology and Economics (BME)
Department of Telecommunications (HIT) -= =20 Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)
Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax:=20 +36-1-463-3307
web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl --_000_05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032HE113484emea1_-- From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Thu Jul 14 13:29:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EA1011E80BE for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:29:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.129 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C51bTdBuKXSp for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e0c:1:1599::10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA0111E8079 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C5F94011A for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:29:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E1F51AA.3070901@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:29:30 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext@ietf.org References: <20110714005811.AF0F298C535@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20110714005811.AF0F298C535@rfc-editor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110714-1, 14/07/2011), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [MEXT] RFC 6276 on DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for Network Mobility (NEMO) X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:29:46 -0000 Thanks for this RFC. Good news and I am happy about it. It is a good and necessary means to configure the prefix on MR. Without it the MR needs to pre-configure somehow its prefix, which is a burden. We could discuss further about some of its imposed features (Relay on MR, alternate sequencing Sol/BU/Sol, etc.) Alex Le 14/07/2011 02:58, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org a écrit : > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > RFC 6276 > > Title: DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for Network Mobility (NEMO) > Author: R. Droms, P. Thubert, F. Dupont, W. Haddad, C. Bernardos > Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: July 2011 > Mailbox: rdroms@cisco.com, pthubert@cisco.com, fdupont@isc.org, > Wassim.Haddad@ericsson.com, cjbc@it.uc3m.es Pages: 14 > Characters: 30430 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None > > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-07.txt > > URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6276.txt > > One aspect of network mobility support is the assignment of a prefix > or prefixes to a mobile router for use on the links in the mobile > network. This document specifies how DHCPv6 prefix delegation can > be used for this configuration task. The mobile router plays the > role of requesting router, while the home agent assumes the role of > delegating router. When the mobile router is outside its home > network, the mobile router also assumes the role of DHCPv6 relay > agent, co-located with the requesting router function. > [STANDARDS-TRACK] > > This document is a product of the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 > Working Group of the IETF. > > This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. > > STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track > protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and > suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of > the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the > standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of > this memo is unlimited. > > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To > subscribe or unsubscribe, see > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist > > For searching the RFC series, see > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. > Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are > for unlimited distribution. > > > The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC > > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > From goodzi@gmail.com Fri Jul 15 03:57:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD59C21F8545; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:57:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vByFmc0vnNAK; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961EF21F85DE; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so1171998vxi.31 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:57:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Zr2Qxl41GeG5rHDSJZzE5Vf/AMuRhIDluBMD+aRsJ4k=; b=wiiL6Qdjkg0vh1Vs7/Hfiiigf1GKUEcM1PrjljBrBMYxyG/p33X3zsRX37rJryURDw bntbC5b7ht6MzAsLLZaNzkxoyeoqW698xLQcFN4rA/84K/qMtSR+xLVyIQ+CTjBwajwc 43ZA8nXzwLK/KkgUTZ+HTbdml0IvGszzRyZl8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.88.76 with SMTP id be12mr3607635vdb.366.1310727470703; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.165.233 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:57:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:57:50 +0200 Message-ID: From: Bokor Laszlo To: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f35e649e35004a819851b Cc: netext@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] novel research article about DMM X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:57:56 -0000 --20cf307f35e649e35004a819851b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Dirk, yes, we are planning to extend our analysis to new approaches and schemes not yet examined. In this matter it would be great if you could point on some particular schemes which are worth dealing with from the WG's point of view. Best regards, goodzi -- L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK) Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307 web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl 2011/7/14 > ** > Dear goodzi, > from the abstract and figures available at the links you provided it seem= s > to me that PMIP and HIP achieve scores of +/- 1 regarding deployment, > security, performance, and objective (whatever this means) ('nearly same > performance, but HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under > evaluation criteria due to stronger security and fewer functional modules= to > deploy') - but I can't draw any conclusions for further extensions ... > especially towards various DMM proposals as outlined in > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 > > or/and > > ** > *http://www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-00.txt*= > Would it be possible to extend your analysis method also to such new > approaches under discussion? > > Best regards > Dirk > > ------------------------------ > *Von:* dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] *Im Auftrag von > *Bokor Laszlo > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 14. Juli 2011 12:45 > *An:* dmm > *Betreff:* [dmm] novel research article about DMM > > Dear Folks, > > please let me advertise you a research paper in the area of DMM and futur= e > flat mobile networks: > > Title: Evaluation of two integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra Flat > Architecture using SIP, IEEE 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols > ACM link: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3D1975468 > DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005 > > I hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you wil= l > provide us with feedbacks on our work. > > Best regards, > goodzi > > -- > L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR > Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) > Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK) > Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307 > web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl > --20cf307f35e649e35004a819851b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Dirk,

yes, we are planning to extend our analysis to new approa= ches and schemes not yet examined. In this matter it would be great if you = could point on some particular schemes which are worth dealing with from th= e WG's point of view.

Best regards,
goodzi

--
L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR
Budapest Unive= rsity of Technology and Economics (BME)
Department of Telecommunications= (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)
Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-= 463-3307
web: http://w= ww.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl

2011/7/14 <Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de>
Dear goodzi,
from the abstract and figures available at the lin= ks you=20 provided it seems to me that PMIP and HIP achieve scores of +/- 1 regarding= =20 deployment, security, performance, and objective (whatever this means)=20 ('nearl= y same performance, but=20 HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under evaluation criteria due t= o=20 stronger security and fewer functional modules to deploy'<= span>)=20 - but I can'= ;t draw any=20 conclusions for further extensions ... especially towards various DMM propo= sals=20 as outlined in
Would= it be possible to extend your analysis method=20 also to such=A0new=20 approaches=A0under discussion?
=A0
Best regards
Dirk

Von: dmm-bounces@ietf.org=20 [mailto:dmm-bounc= es@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Bokor=20 Laszlo
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juli 2011 12:45
An:=20 dmm
Betreff: [dmm] novel research article about=20 DMM

Dear Folks,

please let me advertise you a research paper = in=20 the area of DMM and future flat mobile networks:

Title: Evaluation o= f two=20 integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra Flat Architecture using SIP, IE= EE=20 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols
ACM link: http://portal.acm.org/citat= ion.cfm?id=3D1975468
DOI:=20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005

I=20 hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you will pr= ovide=20 us with feedbacks on our work.

Best=20 regards,
goodzi

--
L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR
Budapest University of= =20 Technology and Economics (BME)
Department of Telecommunications (HIT) -= =20 Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)
Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax:=20 +36-1-463-3307
web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl

--20cf307f35e649e35004a819851b-- From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Fri Jul 15 15:13:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B0A21F8B15 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:13:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.838 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.838 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.761, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CqZ37VeuVVaA for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm14.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm14.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.90.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7452721F8AE4 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.90.56] by nm14.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jul 2011 22:13:00 -0000 Received: from [98.138.88.236] by tm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jul 2011 22:13:00 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1036.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jul 2011 22:13:00 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 723513.85894.bm@omp1036.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 14870 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Jul 2011 22:13:00 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1310767980; bh=xqHMiLfrfwX9JWLFFICQIS6tHOTtvX49YdL8cNdkRfo=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=dGG156rLFsYXlu0zw0C2h2vfuj2oPRJc07FLwe2NDkAgj5zmEZnBGGuVNTOKJStXJ65kWxxJ80apLW6kMNYbBA+9arq1e5qtWcR1mCf8i7JllSgQOva758Rfm3HNVSWIE7spkH0/w45yJYfSZPX22hXogJ9CMAW6Z8KxedxaK2A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=BYk6X7FenOS5GQdz8gIV8E7IvnIQDJHVFegMAXdlO4GQ17Z7VCTe0Se7XaHPtoch/66vILIgj0Ts0ytXMFCeT/CnAGC7Wk2X6/kQf0chtn+CAPL5LwQs/S8uVflDwatot8UrT6JoGNgd4tfeaCOpkdarnWIuZLn0N9FuiTxO9Po=; X-YMail-OSG: gTYhFSIVM1l2_GSRi1mPJywHtjLvJBfaBiCE6sKpOB9d_Ey ryZUiHckisRkonkisTYbzNAoZbpmDa.esHDv75Jw_aoWNhgai3S_QqYOrGPK MjQfDSld.ZTMtyRH1T3xcjC_.5jvg3oAZAQp6.AWQxXz0bm9XUVnJ0YYj3ax WRH901LRoofipH.9BCrp2wbNQ1Ql..OygO_EAQs4g72TKb6f8GAa0y89QMx3 h6lZUWbx7WhBVUzH6uD8FAV1iJLNTrA0wfDJbW9L0L_.7Dzq1LTt30Ikn43L 5.2foKxWPUPaenYyYo0hC0ZU5PvQ05jURJ91UggBdbmxnECKS0XAPfax3pCb uzYZ2whJ4_w8JopOM5tSig_ILYJNVdHtfJN0lNjyMrsnMu8FOYeihBbvL7OI TGsLey9eIr6yRuyTiQvavebIP40iBAurKCklnhe.YgUYzQMR.4RW4M_7_iju AzjG4brA1S1h9WilFpvcgjQXz3NFxN671hOZm6ciLJ3XhlZItC0hAsVP4geB hPqxXg9iUSdUBz9eJsFl5VqximiAqUISDsP5hXO74HQjkNBy6siYHbmGvM6K hv0WuheGU5aa8yZApzV8ZATrIXTs_emh10TGVlomUJGqwdYPKkTSWi2FLMu8 JSBfUFW_gvOBTWb4.huo80xbf07vQomb3D98NW.hlF7uY3DbmfvjhxtoX.nh Z7TmybSVQOz3yibBU1xeuyjja Received: from [50.58.7.243] by web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:13:00 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Message-ID: <1310767980.5812.YahooMailRC@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:13:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Bokor Laszlo , Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] novel research article about DMM X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 22:13:08 -0000 Hi Laszlo,=0A A good pointer is Romain's draft at:=0Ahttp://tools.ietf.org= /html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00=0A=0ARegards,=0A=0ABehcet=0A>yes, we are p= lanning to extend our analysis to new approaches and schemes not =0A>yet ex= amined. In this matter it would be great if you could point on some =0A>par= ticular schemes which are worth dealing with from the WG's point of view.= =0A>=0A>Best regards,=0A>goodzi=0A>=0A>--=0A>L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR=0A>Budapest U= niversity of Technology and Economics (BME)=0A>Department of Telecommunicat= ions (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)=0A>Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +3= 6-1-463-3307=0A>web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/%7Ebokorl=0A>=0A>=0A>2011/7/14 <= Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de>=0A>=0A> =0A>>Dear goodzi,=0A>>from the abstract a= nd figures available at the links you provided it seems to =0A=0A>>me that= PMIP and HIP achieve scores of +/- 1 regarding deployment, security, =0A>= >performance, and objective (whatever this means) ('nearly same performanc= e, =0A>>but =0A>>HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under evaluat= ion criteria due to =0A>>stronger security and fewer functional modules to= deploy') - but I can't draw =0A>>any conclusions for further extensions .= .. especially towards various DMM =0A>>proposals as outlined in =0A>>=0A>>= http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 =0A>>or/andhttp://ww= w.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-00.txt=0A>>Would it= be possible to extend your analysis method also to such new =0A>>approac= hes under discussion?=0A>> =0A>>Best regards=0A>>Dirk=0A>>=0A>>=0A_________= _______________________=0AVon: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@iet= f.org] Im Auftrag von Bokor =0ALaszlo=0A>>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juli 2= 011 12:45=0A>>An: dmm=0A>>Betreff: [dmm] novel research article about DMM= =0A>>=0A>>=0A>>Dear Folks,=0A>>=0A>>please let me advertise you a research = paper in the area of DMM and future flat =0A>>=0A>>mobile networks:=0A>>= =0A>>Title: Evaluation of two integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra = Flat =0A>>Architecture using SIP, IEEE 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols =0A>= >=0A>>ACM link: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3D1975468=0A>>DOI: h= ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005=0A>>=0A>>I hope you will fin= d the above article interesting, and also that you will =0A>>provide us wi= th feedbacks on our work.=0A>>=0A>>Best regards,=0A>>goodzi=0A>>=0A>>--=0A= >>L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR=0A>>Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BM= E)=0A>>Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (= MIK)=0A>>Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307=0A>>web: http://www.hit.= bme.hu/~bokorl=0A>>=0A> From sgundave@cisco.com Sun Jul 17 11:49:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAEC921F867A for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:49:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.072 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.072 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.473, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yvBx32d4O7aN for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 415C421F8577 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:49:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=694; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1310928541; x=1312138141; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=78cfYw/ZXr4U0IU6sryHZeEKnr0btITm774qpLYwGFE=; b=DLfC41EQPaaE1truNYh4vNk/BirZ+iQdAKOagdHrEauAD2MiB/3i/U5U Si4Jsk38e00XG5qR58X9jV6PEHWjp4gI8zvOs8Lh4QLXJiFepSxYhiE0q /kAMuN9BHbc5oBKE8eRibA/Jr4trcU6MjFZ62yoqeG84Hv9HQi8rd7ofA E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAMstI06rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABRp3J3iHykGJ0VhjwEh1SLEoUKi2s X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,218,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="3752776" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2011 18:49:00 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6HIn0BX002324; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:49:00 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:49:00 -0700 Received: from 10.32.246.213 ([10.32.246.213]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:48:59 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427 Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:48:54 -0700 From: Sri Gundavelli To: marcelo bagnulo braun , mext Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 Thread-Index: AcxEsi0x4YuEkPyM3EGeKjj1xSwKaw== In-Reply-To: <4E1D4DEC.2060103@it.uc3m.es> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2011 18:49:00.0299 (UTC) FILETIME=[30F2D5B0:01CC44B2] Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:49:02 -0000 This doc is generally in a good shape. Went through quite a few reviews over the last few years. Sure, this is a comment from an additional author review. But, there are like a dozen or two co-authors on this ... Sri On 7/13/11 12:49 AM, "marcelo bagnulo braun" wrote: > This note issues the WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09. > > Please send your comments before the 1st of august. > > You can find the draft at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 > > Regards, marcelo > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From sgundave@cisco.com Sun Jul 17 12:44:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08F921F8658 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:44:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.351, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xXkekpI5ymbQ for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970FC21F863A for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:44:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=3988; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1310931840; x=1312141440; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=oN75TYDJv6xWKXuO0sLYrk9dpE6pPxEn/b+D81zlsOM=; b=FRibDjHDfYPb6XNPHBFcS1zeUxuBi80fpF8+JGaUheemtq+9YpSJdY4o xX0tPFYdVKdBzE++4g3fG1YidP951oytvTmbOb2PXd0kNT90++546xM3m WDJqfAiCeC43nIdOvsBL9kz8pjQaQvjpUWYnvieMpEM41s9fRtxoror4/ c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EALE6I06rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABRp3J3iHykLp0RhjwEh1SLEoUKi2s X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,218,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="3758075" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2011 19:43:59 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6HJhx2A013205; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:43:59 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:43:59 -0700 Received: from 10.32.246.213 ([10.32.246.213]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:43:59 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427 Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:43:56 -0700 From: Sri Gundavelli To: , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHMQB+/vTiCYkVQrE2OABRQFeV53pTqVUQAgAaeN0k= In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2011 19:43:59.0419 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF6098B0:01CC44B9] Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:44:01 -0000 Raj: I've reviwed this draft. Clarifying questions. 1. New Mobility option > data contains a location in XML format as defined in RFC5139 I'm bit surprised on the need to carry Civic Location info. I thought it is intended for human interpretation. Ex: Building 24, 2nd Floor, in front of Starbucks, when this location info in this format is carried in MIP binding option, how can the home agent make use of it realistically ? I'm not sure, beyond the "S" flag the draft proposes, if this new mobility option is needed ? The draft is also not clear on the aspect of negotiation. It appears to be more a request in the form of "S" flag in the draft. 2. Use of IKEv2/RFC 4877 If the MN is in a location where it decides to enable security protection for the data traffic, it can certainly establish an IPsec SA for the tunnel mode ESP. Wondering, if this needs to be achieved over a MIP control plane and the advantages with that approach ? Even if this needs to be determined after the MIP session set up, still there needs to be IKEv2 protocol exchange for creating the SA ? Nothing stops either the HA or the MN to create an SA for the tunnel mode ESP. 3. General question The HA is providing IP mobility service for the mobile node's home address. >From the mobile node, or a correspondent node perspective, the home agent is just a pass through device. Securing the MN-HA link can certainly protects all the traffic for some part of the path segment, but it is not sufficient. If the argument is that, this is also a consideration for mobility service, as Julien/Raj or some one commented when it was presented, but I could not agree either way in my head, if this is really a service that the home agent needs to offer, or if it should be between the traffic flow end points. 4. Granularity/Traffic Selectors for Protection The mobile node may decide not to secure all traffic, as there is some pandora/youtube or other garbage traffic, which does not require protection. The approach here seems to be enable or disable data plane security. Why not try this with the DSMIP traffic flow selectors, as part of access selection for a flow, adding a bit to turn or off security might be an option ? You get the granularity for traffic protection as well. Regards Sri On 7/13/11 2:40 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" wrote: > > We have posted a new version of the I-D. This does not incorporate the > review comments from Julien L., Kent Leung, Stefano Faccin and Jouni > Korhonen. We hope to do that in Rev 3 of the I-D in the next few weeks. > > -Raj > > On 7/11/11 6:10 PM, "ext internet-drafts@ietf.org" > wrote: > >> A new version of I-D, draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt has been successfully >> submitted by Basavaraj Patil and posted to the IETF repository. >> >> Filename: draft-bajko-mext-sod >> Revision: 02 >> Title: Security on Demand for Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile >> IPv6 >> Creation date: 2011-07-12 >> WG ID: Individual Submission >> Number of pages: 9 >> >> Abstract: >> Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile IPv6 protocols require the >> signaling messages between the mobile node and home agent to be >> secured. However security for the user plane/traffic is optional and >> is a choice left to the mobile node. This document proposes >> extensions to Mobile IPv6 signaling which enables the user plane >> traffic to be secured on a need or on-demand basis. The mobile node >> or the home agent can request at any time security for the user plane >> traffic. Security for user plane traffic can be triggered as a >> result of policy or, mobility or, at the user's choice. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From Xiangsong.Cui@huawei.com Sun Jul 17 19:34:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF06121F8A7B for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:34:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e2pFnadoWD8g for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216E221F8A71 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LOI00LNTCGIC1@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:33:54 +0800 (CST) Received: from c00111037 ([10.111.132.96]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LOI00DW5CGHPI@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:33:54 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:33:53 +0800 From: Xiangsong Cui To: 'mext' Message-id: <021601cc44f3$231c7130$69555390$%cui@huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-language: zh-cn Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: Acw/eBPveEEBIOj+RL2qA+41pmYmSwFeqqlQ Subject: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-cui-mext-route-optimization-cn-proxy-01.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:34:14 -0000 Hi folks, We have submitted a new draft, http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cui-mext-route-optimization-cn-proxy-01.txt. Please review and comment. Best regards, Xiangsong -----Original Message----- From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:10 AM To: Xiangsong.Cui@huawei.com Cc: antti.makela@aalto.fi; Peter.McCann@huawei.com; Xiangsong.Cui@huawei.com Subject: New Version Notification for draft-cui-mext-route-optimization-cn-proxy-01.txt A new version of I-D, draft-cui-mext-route-optimization-cn-proxy-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Xiangsong Cui and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-cui-mext-route-optimization-cn-proxy Revision: 01 Title: Proxy Correspondent Node Operation for Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization Creation date: 2011-07-11 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 21 Abstract: Route Optimization is a useful aspect of Mobile IPv6. In Route Optimization mode a Mobile Node (MN) can communicate with a Correspondent Node (CN) without the involvement of the MN's home agent. However, there are some limitations to this feature, including that the Mobile Node and the Correspondent Node must both be capable of Route Optimization. This document introduces a Route Optimization Proxy function that can be used to enable Route Optimization between an MN and an arbitrary other IP CN - the Route Optimization functions are delegated to the Proxy. The Route Optimization Proxy function may be implemented in the access router attached to the CN or any other node present on both the path from the MN to the CN and from the HA to the CN, and the Route Optimization Proxy can conduct RO-related signaling and accomplish the Route Optimization procedure on behalf of the Correspondent Node. The IETF Secretariat From goodzi@gmail.com Mon Jul 18 03:28:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A9921F8BB4 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:28:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.538 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u1J6zsCAC1aX for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF03121F8BB3 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so1583253ewy.31 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:28:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=r/aw5rN1K4OplYwf8kp0lBpdgHtUgnWSZ9QrvXXK5Vk=; b=bwpGqzIauloD+k2D8nYTkQ5kIcz7/dYi6Flv7/UJFJOinmVnYoOGAgokSScENaVqI7 SW1VNAeYLEKRIxYLpiYc3xyoCzDkOc76IYI0IjhYXEN/eXmeymfLLTx3yJkhcPSAmFxx 0qE072n4ouzNsajimZbEbwTY78nQcwSReFRP8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.94.206 with SMTP id n54mr2126277eef.91.1310984888901; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:28:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.53.2 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:28:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1310767980.5812.YahooMailRC@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A25BC2EA032@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <1310767980.5812.YahooMailRC@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:28:08 +0200 Message-ID: From: Bokor Laszlo To: Behcet Sarikaya Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51f910d9be0d104a8557427 Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] novel research article about DMM X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:28:14 -0000 --bcaec51f910d9be0d104a8557427 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Behcet, many thanks for your suggestions. Best regards, goodzi -- L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK) Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307 web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl 2011/7/16 Behcet Sarikaya > Hi Laszlo, > A good pointer is Romain's draft at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 > > Regards, > > Behcet > >yes, we are planning to extend our analysis to new approaches and scheme= s > not > >yet examined. In this matter it would be great if you could point on som= e > >particular schemes which are worth dealing with from the WG's point of > view. > > > >Best regards, > >goodzi > > > >-- > >L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR > >Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) > >Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK) > >Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307 > >web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/%7Ebokorl > > > > > >2011/7/14 > > > > > >>Dear goodzi, > >>from the abstract and figures available at the links you provided it > seems to > > >>me that PMIP and HIP achieve scores of +/- 1 regarding deployment, > security, > >>performance, and objective (whatever this means) ('nearly same > performance, > >>but > >>HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under evaluation criteria d= ue > to > >>stronger security and fewer functional modules to deploy') - but I can'= t > draw > >>any conclusions for further extensions ... especially towards various > DMM > >>proposals as outlined in > >> > >>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00 > >>or/andhttp:// > www.psg.com/~charliep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-00.txt > >>Would it be possible to extend your analysis method also to such new > >>approaches under discussion? > >> > >>Best regards > >>Dirk > >> > >> > ________________________________ > Von: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von > Bokor > Laszlo > >>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juli 2011 12:45 > >>An: dmm > >>Betreff: [dmm] novel research article about DMM > >> > >> > >>Dear Folks, > >> > >>please let me advertise you a research paper in the area of DMM and > future flat > >> > >>mobile networks: > >> > >>Title: Evaluation of two integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra > Flat > >>Architecture using SIP, IEEE 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols > >> > >>ACM link: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3D1975468 > >>DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005 > >> > >>I hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you > will > >>provide us with feedbacks on our work. > >> > >>Best regards, > >>goodzi > >> > >>-- > >>L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR > >>Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) > >>Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK= ) > >>Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307 > >>web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl > >> > > > --bcaec51f910d9be0d104a8557427 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Behcet,

many thanks for your suggestions.

Best regards,<= br>goodzi

--
L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR
Budapest University of =A0Technology and Economics (BME)
Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - =A0Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)<= br> Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: =A0+36-1-463-3307
web: http://w= ww.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl

2011/7/16 Behce= t Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
Hi Laszlo,
=A0A good pointer is Romain's draft at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summa= ry-00

Regards,

Behcet
>yes, we are planning to extend our analysis to new ap= proaches and schemes not
>yet examined. In this matter it would be great if you could point on so= me
>particular schemes which are worth dealing with from the WG's point= of view.
>
>Best regards,
>goodzi
>
>--
>L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR
>Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME)
>Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)=
>Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307
>web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/%7Ebokorl
>
>
>2011/7/14 <Dirk.von-Hugo= @telekom.de>
>
>
>>Dear goodzi,
>>from the abstract and figures available at the links you =A0provide= d it seems to

>>me that PMIP and HIP achieve scores of +/- 1 regarding =A0deploymen= t, security,
>>performance, and objective (whatever this means) =A0('nearly sa= me performance,
>>but
>>HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under evaluation criter= ia due to
>>stronger security and fewer functional modules to deploy') - bu= t I can't draw
>>any =A0conclusions for further extensions ... especially towards va= rious DMM
>>proposals =A0as outlined in
>>
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00<= br>
>>or/andhttp://www.psg.com/~charli= ep/txt/ietf81/draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-00.txt
>>Would it be possible to extend yo= ur analysis method =A0also to such new
>>approaches under discussion?
>>
>>Best regards
>>Dirk
>>
>>
________________________________
Von: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mail= to:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auf= trag von Bokor
Laszlo
>>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juli 2011 12:45
>>An: dmm
>>Betreff: [dmm] novel research article about =A0DMM
>>
>>
>>Dear Folks,
>>
>>please let me advertise you a research paper in =A0the area of DMM = and future flat
>>
>>mobile networks:
>>
>>Title: Evaluation of two =A0integrated signalling schemes for the U= ltra Flat
>>Architecture using SIP, IEEE =A0802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols
>>
>>ACM link: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3D1975468 >>DOI: =A0http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005
>>
>>I =A0hope you will find the above article interesting, and also tha= t you will
>>provide =A0us with feedbacks on our work.
>>
>>Best =A0regards,
>>goodzi
>>
>>--
>>L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR
>>Budapest University of =A0Technology and Economics (BME)
>>Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - =A0Mobile Innovation Centr= e (MIK)
>>Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: =A0+36-1-463-3307
>>web: = http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl
>>
>

--bcaec51f910d9be0d104a8557427-- From julien.ietf@gmail.com Mon Jul 18 11:47:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7670F21F8B8A for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.491 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gfCOkdzFijEX for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6269321F8B89 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe4 with SMTP id 4so8183345fxe.27 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:47:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QT7dIwPwh9/LhkLBfSaZ0gh3xg6vW4aOOF11zJ0m7To=; b=DhhP7j4Yidx+EQ+YZ3ILqAsXbogC4dDAGelEYyhrrmJALDeLzxRATCboDo1Fd7hLGt xXDWsiil/Mb1H8Pa8PjIvOU2jiyn3beYe32zPLivBHQhGKkbxAMguNc4S2wuwUmnUUUU XfxAyjSwmAXc1jCOc5/WATAlRqXwCiWKCIbxk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.23.74 with SMTP id q10mr1869698bkb.270.1311014867881; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:47:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.62.77 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:47:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:47:47 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Sri Gundavelli Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mext@ietf.org, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:47:51 -0000 Hi Sri, Thanks for reviewing the draft. Re: point #2 below, IKEv2 is a mean for HA and MN to negotiate IPsec Security Association. My understanding of this draft is that it provides a mean for HA and MN to negotiate the IPsec Security Policy that govern exchange of data traffic between these two. As such the two are not exclusive or redundant, but complimentary. What do you think? --julien On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Sri Gundavelli wrote= : > Raj: > > I've reviwed this draft. Clarifying questions. > > > > 1. New Mobility option > >> data contains a location in XML format as defined in RFC5139 > > I'm bit surprised on the need to carry Civic Location info. I thought it = is > intended for human interpretation. Ex: Building 24, 2nd Floor, in front o= f > Starbucks, when this location info in this format is carried in MIP bindi= ng > option, how can the home agent make use of it realistically ? I'm not sur= e, > beyond the "S" flag the draft proposes, if this new mobility option is > needed ? The draft is also not clear on the aspect of negotiation. It > appears to be more a request in the form of "S" flag in the draft. > > > 2. Use of IKEv2/RFC 4877 > > If the MN is in a location where it decides to enable security protection > for the data traffic, it can certainly establish an IPsec SA for the tunn= el > mode ESP. Wondering, if this needs to be achieved over a MIP control plan= e > and the advantages with that approach ? Even if this needs to be determin= ed > after the MIP session set up, still there needs to be IKEv2 protocol > exchange for creating the SA ? Nothing stops either the HA or the MN to > create an SA for the tunnel mode ESP. > > > 3. General question > > The HA is providing IP mobility service for the mobile node's home addres= s. > From the mobile node, or a correspondent node perspective, the home agent= is > just a pass through device. Securing the MN-HA link can certainly protect= s > all the traffic for some part of the path segment, but it is not sufficie= nt. > If the argument is that, this is also a consideration for mobility servic= e, > as Julien/Raj or some one commented when it was presented, but I could no= t > agree either way in my head, if this is really a service that the home ag= ent > needs to offer, or if it should be between the traffic flow end points. > > 4. Granularity/Traffic Selectors for Protection > > The mobile node may decide not to secure all traffic, as there is some > pandora/youtube or other garbage traffic, which does not require protecti= on. > The approach here seems to be enable or disable data plane security. Why = not > try this with the DSMIP traffic flow selectors, as part of access selecti= on > for a flow, adding a bit to turn or off security might be an option ? You > get the granularity for traffic protection as well. > > > Regards > Sri > > > > > > > > > On 7/13/11 2:40 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" > wrote: > >> >> We have posted a new version of the I-D. This does not incorporate the >> review comments from Julien L., Kent Leung, Stefano Faccin and Jouni >> Korhonen. We hope to do that in Rev 3 of the I-D in the next few weeks. >> >> -Raj >> >> On 7/11/11 6:10 PM, "ext internet-drafts@ietf.org" >> wrote: >> >>> A new version of I-D, draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt has been successfully >>> submitted by Basavaraj Patil and posted to the IETF repository. >>> >>> Filename: =A0 =A0 draft-bajko-mext-sod >>> Revision: =A0 =A0 02 >>> Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Security on Demand for Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stac= k Mobile >>> IPv6 >>> Creation date: =A0 =A0 2011-07-12 >>> WG ID: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Individual Submission >>> Number of pages: 9 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> =A0 Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile IPv6 protocols require the >>> =A0 signaling messages between the mobile node and home agent to be >>> =A0 secured. =A0However security for the user plane/traffic is optional= and >>> =A0 is a choice left to the mobile node. =A0This document proposes >>> =A0 extensions to Mobile IPv6 signaling which enables the user plane >>> =A0 traffic to be secured on a need or on-demand basis. =A0The mobile n= ode >>> =A0 or the home agent can request at any time security for the user pla= ne >>> =A0 traffic. =A0Security for user plane traffic can be triggered as a >>> =A0 result of policy or, mobility or, at the user's choice. >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > From ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com Mon Jul 18 15:43:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D45A21F89A7 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:43:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ayDRIODpB-iQ for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACAD821F86BB for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxp4 with SMTP id 4so1838337yxp.31 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:43:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+oEAUbe5X9moABU1ok2fnR0J32iBMhCGnL2N4GfN6Fk=; b=FAN6bnCZL0HDl0U/WcOode7lbI8gnc/4eDZ8xE8AZwTlCxYi/oX5WCWVHwtASca6zQ K0FLrDfrPGZBqVxq6buVnRoRtLGjf+LYlabPRkOkaqc/xfKvUnuAFinrJ61oV5hBVBwv 7A5evwuMf0465UeEI8Kw8cyvUKBCMeXJy88j4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.203.13 with SMTP id a13mr1945505ybg.78.1311029023082; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.147.182.7 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:43:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E1DC794.1080502@it.uc3m.es> References: <4E1D4DEC.2060103@it.uc3m.es> <1310570943.43371.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1DC3ED.8060904@it.uc3m.es> <1310574030.47552.YahooMailRC@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E1DC794.1080502@it.uc3m.es> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:43:42 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ryuji Wakikawa To: marcelo bagnulo braun Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Behcet Sarikaya , mext Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ryuji@sfc.wide.ad.jp List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:43:44 -0000 Hi Marcelo I'll support this document as an author;) I expect more reviews on this doc. For some records, we had review from Carlos, Arnaud, Basavaraj a year ago. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04251.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04250.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04277.html I also noticed I got a comment from Dirk, Thanks Dirk and sorry for missing your email. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04668.html The comments are mostly editorial. I'll update this once WGLC is close thanks ryuji On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:28 AM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > So, let me rephrase then, support from the authors is nice, but it would = be > much more useful to have through reviews of the document. > > Regards, marcelo > > > El 13/07/11 18:20, Behcet Sarikaya escribi=F3: >> >> Marcelo, this draft has been reviewed in depth so many times and the >> current >> version is in a very good shape. >> >> Take my word for it because I am one of the authors :-). >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >>> That is nice, but it would be much more useful a thorough review of the >>> document and comments in the ml of how it can improved. >>> >>> Regards, =A0marcelo >>> >>> >>> El 13/07/11 17:29, Behcet Sarikaya escribi=F3: >>>> >>>> I =A0support advancing this document. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> =A0Behcet >>>> >>>> >>>>> This note issues the WGLC for =A0draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09. >>>>> >>>>> Please =A0send your =A0comments before the 1st of august. >>>>> >>>>> You can find the =A0draft =A0at: >>>>> =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 >>>>> >>>>> =A0Regards, =A0marcelo >>>>> >>>>> =A0_______________________________________________ >>>>> MEXT mailing =A0 list >>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > From sgundave@cisco.com Mon Jul 18 20:14:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA9F21F875E for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:14:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.148 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.945, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1rb8cB6iDixB for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:14:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A2621F85C6 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:14:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=6800; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311045268; x=1312254868; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RoPRrJwEgY5gQHS6zI0W59vI2zvoRK5Sr2Y0A0s3qnQ=; b=eh9xi8deSS5FF+nJh3klVxHecmVMx9JHfW1cz0o57WudFq1ebx03C4qD UUCHvqEsoqu9qnR/lC+VWQaiAtWza/m7T3q4WbJ9uFH9oiie7g4CaI5Ft zjmJ+uLqc+xZWxmHSZX1vLkgAtLAYsAP6CwvtYctRrDwmE4zX0USAra4E Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EACb2JE6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABTplxud4h8pWueR4Y8BIclL4sShQqEV4cV X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,226,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="4178636" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2011 03:14:27 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6J3EQLf024910; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 03:14:26 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:14:26 -0700 Received: from 10.32.246.213 ([10.32.246.213]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 03:14:25 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427 Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:14:20 -0700 From: Sri Gundavelli To: Julien Laganier Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt Thread-Index: AcxFwfNPwQ99wkYhdkij8g1C/EE2Ig== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2011 03:14:26.0360 (UTC) FILETIME=[F71A4380:01CC45C1] Cc: mext@ietf.org, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 03:14:31 -0000 Hi Julien, Thanks for your response. Two points: - The exchange of security policy in this draft, the semantics appear to be a boolean in nature. I'm ignoring the new civic location info option to be carried in the request, as I cannot realistically tie any security policy around that data element containing a street address. Unless, I misunderstood. - If I look at our IPsec implementation (should be close to any other standard implementation), the security policy configured on the Ipsec peers= , allows the requestor to ask security services, say X and Y. Now, the peer can ask for X, Y, or X+Y. Translating this to MIPv6 usage, the mobile node can ask for SA's for the control plane security and additionally the SA's for data plane security. Now, if this is about moving the decision point of data plane security to MIP control plane from the Ipsec layer, each time there is an IKEv2 request, the request needs to be passed to the MIP contro= l plane, which seems to be one more level of indirection. Its not clear to me= , how it needs to be implemented. May be extending PF_Key interface to allow Ipsec module to get authorization from MIPv6 is another approach. The draft needs to have a paragraph on the motivation covering these aspects, the limitations in the current decoupled SA negotiation model. Also, providing some granularity around traffic selection for protection will be more useful, as supposed to securing all data traffic, as I say in point #4 below. I'm not opposing or supporting this draft, just trying to understand. Sri On 7/18/11 11:47 AM, "Julien Laganier" wrote: > Hi Sri, >=20 > Thanks for reviewing the draft. Re: point #2 below, IKEv2 is a mean > for HA and MN to negotiate IPsec Security Association. My > understanding of this draft is that it provides a mean for HA and MN > to negotiate the IPsec Security Policy that govern exchange of data > traffic between these two. As such the two are not exclusive or > redundant, but complimentary. >=20 > What do you think? >=20 > --julien >=20 > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Sri Gundavelli wro= te: >> Raj: >>=20 >> I've reviwed this draft. Clarifying questions. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> 1. New Mobility option >>=20 >>> data contains a location in XML format as defined in RFC5139 >>=20 >> I'm bit surprised on the need to carry Civic Location info. I thought it= is >> intended for human interpretation. Ex: Building 24, 2nd Floor, in front = of >> Starbucks, when this location info in this format is carried in MIP bind= ing >> option, how can the home agent make use of it realistically ? I'm not su= re, >> beyond the "S" flag the draft proposes, if this new mobility option is >> needed ? The draft is also not clear on the aspect of negotiation. It >> appears to be more a request in the form of "S" flag in the draft. >>=20 >>=20 >> 2. Use of IKEv2/RFC 4877 >>=20 >> If the MN is in a location where it decides to enable security protectio= n >> for the data traffic, it can certainly establish an IPsec SA for the tun= nel >> mode ESP. Wondering, if this needs to be achieved over a MIP control pla= ne >> and the advantages with that approach ? Even if this needs to be determi= ned >> after the MIP session set up, still there needs to be IKEv2 protocol >> exchange for creating the SA ? Nothing stops either the HA or the MN to >> create an SA for the tunnel mode ESP. >>=20 >>=20 >> 3. General question >>=20 >> The HA is providing IP mobility service for the mobile node's home addre= ss. >> From the mobile node, or a correspondent node perspective, the home agen= t is >> just a pass through device. Securing the MN-HA link can certainly protec= ts >> all the traffic for some part of the path segment, but it is not suffici= ent. >> If the argument is that, this is also a consideration for mobility servi= ce, >> as Julien/Raj or some one commented when it was presented, but I could n= ot >> agree either way in my head, if this is really a service that the home a= gent >> needs to offer, or if it should be between the traffic flow end points. >>=20 >> 4. Granularity/Traffic Selectors for Protection >>=20 >> The mobile node may decide not to secure all traffic, as there is some >> pandora/youtube or other garbage traffic, which does not require protect= ion. >> The approach here seems to be enable or disable data plane security. Why= not >> try this with the DSMIP traffic flow selectors, as part of access select= ion >> for a flow, adding a bit to turn or off security might be an option ? Yo= u >> get the granularity for traffic protection as well. >>=20 >>=20 >> Regards >> Sri >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On 7/13/11 2:40 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" >> wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>> We have posted a new version of the I-D. This does not incorporate the >>> review comments from Julien L., Kent Leung, Stefano Faccin and Jouni >>> Korhonen. We hope to do that in Rev 3 of the I-D in the next few weeks. >>>=20 >>> -Raj >>>=20 >>> On 7/11/11 6:10 PM, "ext internet-drafts@ietf.org" >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>>> A new version of I-D, draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt has been successfull= y >>>> submitted by Basavaraj Patil and posted to the IETF repository. >>>>=20 >>>> Filename: =A0 =A0 draft-bajko-mext-sod >>>> Revision: =A0 =A0 02 >>>> Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Security on Demand for Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobil= e >>>> IPv6 >>>> Creation date: =A0 =A0 2011-07-12 >>>> WG ID: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Individual Submission >>>> Number of pages: 9 >>>>=20 >>>> Abstract: >>>> =A0 Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile IPv6 protocols require the >>>> =A0 signaling messages between the mobile node and home agent to be >>>> =A0 secured. =A0However security for the user plane/traffic is optional an= d >>>> =A0 is a choice left to the mobile node. =A0This document proposes >>>> =A0 extensions to Mobile IPv6 signaling which enables the user plane >>>> =A0 traffic to be secured on a need or on-demand basis. =A0The mobile node >>>> =A0 or the home agent can request at any time security for the user plan= e >>>> =A0 traffic. =A0Security for user plane traffic can be triggered as a >>>> =A0 result of policy or, mobility or, at the user's choice. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>=20 From julien.ietf@gmail.com Tue Jul 19 08:10:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C277821F8A4E for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:10:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fu5y9cj9pPBM for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:10:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700C921F89CC for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:10:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe4 with SMTP id 4so223999fxe.27 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:09:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wJVdbkVuZZkoXYzFKGBrEXeaf9hycj4a5mVyAS1u1LY=; b=xWavGL9HEeioTBCJToCZIc6PvlvYOJ272SWDYavSZLC4lO2lRN1AZvWJnj8CtWkxkR kIbCgZuBxVv13USnYnaqctkhnE5tiowMYjxOkA5WxjhWb9OKWqEOgpRTTPF+WpRfgFCK QvHiR4dmS+ZmgigOqk66a+cJgwgYnm9pyQI3g= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.8.89 with SMTP id g25mr2122431bkg.10.1311088194140; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:09:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.62.77 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:09:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:09:54 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Sri Gundavelli Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mext@ietf.org, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:10:13 -0000 Hi Sri, With the risk of repeating myself: the role of IKE is to negotiate security associations between hosts. The security associations permits the enforcement of the security policy. This draft is concerned with a mechanism allowing the MN and the HA to agree on the security policy that governs exchange of data traffic between them. I am also not sure why there would be a need for more granularity. I understood that the motivation between the draft is to be able to turn on and off the IP layer (IPsec) protection of data traffic based on the protection offered by an access network to which the MN attaches, typically at layer 2 (e.g., 802.11). I don' t know why what traffic gets or does not get protected would need to be negotiated dynamically based on the context in which the MN is, e.g., a hotel hotspot vs. a corporate Wi-Fi. To me that seems (semi-)static... --julien On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Sri Gundavelli wrote: > Hi Julien, > > Thanks for your response. Two points: > > - The exchange of security policy in this draft, the semantics appear to = be > a boolean in nature. I'm ignoring the =A0new civic location info option t= o be > carried in the request, as I cannot realistically tie any security policy > around that data element containing a street address. Unless, I > misunderstood. > > - If I look at our IPsec implementation (should be close to any other > standard implementation), the security policy configured on the Ipsec pee= rs, > allows the requestor to ask security services, say =A0X and Y. Now, the p= eer > can ask for X, Y, or X+Y. Translating this to MIPv6 usage, the mobile nod= e > can ask for SA's for the control plane security and additionally the SA's > for data plane security. Now, if this is about moving the decision point = of > data plane security to MIP control plane from the Ipsec layer, each time > there is an IKEv2 request, the request needs to be passed to the MIP cont= rol > plane, which seems to be one more level of indirection. Its not clear to = me, > how it needs to be implemented. May be extending PF_Key interface to allo= w > Ipsec module to get authorization from MIPv6 is another approach. > > The draft needs to have a paragraph on the motivation covering these > aspects, the limitations in the current decoupled SA negotiation model. > > Also, providing some granularity around traffic selection for protection > will be more useful, as supposed to securing all data traffic, as I say i= n > point #4 below. > > I'm not opposing or supporting this draft, just trying to understand. > > > Sri > > > > > > > > > On 7/18/11 11:47 AM, "Julien Laganier" wrote: > >> Hi Sri, >> >> Thanks for reviewing the draft. Re: point #2 below, IKEv2 is a mean >> for HA and MN to negotiate IPsec Security Association. My >> understanding of this draft is that it provides a mean for HA and MN >> to negotiate the IPsec Security Policy that govern exchange of data >> traffic between these two. As such the two are not exclusive or >> redundant, but complimentary. >> >> What do you think? >> >> --julien >> >> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Sri Gundavelli wr= ote: >>> Raj: >>> >>> I've reviwed this draft. Clarifying questions. >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. New Mobility option >>> >>>> data contains a location in XML format as defined in RFC5139 >>> >>> I'm bit surprised on the need to carry Civic Location info. I thought i= t is >>> intended for human interpretation. Ex: Building 24, 2nd Floor, in front= of >>> Starbucks, when this location info in this format is carried in MIP bin= ding >>> option, how can the home agent make use of it realistically ? I'm not s= ure, >>> beyond the "S" flag the draft proposes, if this new mobility option is >>> needed ? The draft is also not clear on the aspect of negotiation. It >>> appears to be more a request in the form of "S" flag in the draft. >>> >>> >>> 2. Use of IKEv2/RFC 4877 >>> >>> If the MN is in a location where it decides to enable security protecti= on >>> for the data traffic, it can certainly establish an IPsec SA for the tu= nnel >>> mode ESP. Wondering, if this needs to be achieved over a MIP control pl= ane >>> and the advantages with that approach ? Even if this needs to be determ= ined >>> after the MIP session set up, still there needs to be IKEv2 protocol >>> exchange for creating the SA ? Nothing stops either the HA or the MN to >>> create an SA for the tunnel mode ESP. >>> >>> >>> 3. General question >>> >>> The HA is providing IP mobility service for the mobile node's home addr= ess. >>> From the mobile node, or a correspondent node perspective, the home age= nt is >>> just a pass through device. Securing the MN-HA link can certainly prote= cts >>> all the traffic for some part of the path segment, but it is not suffic= ient. >>> If the argument is that, this is also a consideration for mobility serv= ice, >>> as Julien/Raj or some one commented when it was presented, but I could = not >>> agree either way in my head, if this is really a service that the home = agent >>> needs to offer, or if it should be between the traffic flow end points. >>> >>> 4. Granularity/Traffic Selectors for Protection >>> >>> The mobile node may decide not to secure all traffic, as there is some >>> pandora/youtube or other garbage traffic, which does not require protec= tion. >>> The approach here seems to be enable or disable data plane security. Wh= y not >>> try this with the DSMIP traffic flow selectors, as part of access selec= tion >>> for a flow, adding a bit to turn or off security might be an option ? Y= ou >>> get the granularity for traffic protection as well. >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> Sri >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/13/11 2:40 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> We have posted a new version of the I-D. This does not incorporate the >>>> review comments from Julien L., Kent Leung, Stefano Faccin and Jouni >>>> Korhonen. We hope to do that in Rev 3 of the I-D in the next few weeks= . >>>> >>>> -Raj >>>> >>>> On 7/11/11 6:10 PM, "ext internet-drafts@ietf.org" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt has been successful= ly >>>>> submitted by Basavaraj Patil and posted to the IETF repository. >>>>> >>>>> Filename: =A0 =A0 draft-bajko-mext-sod >>>>> Revision: =A0 =A0 02 >>>>> Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Security on Demand for Mobile IPv6 and Dual-st= ack Mobile >>>>> IPv6 >>>>> Creation date: =A0 =A0 2011-07-12 >>>>> WG ID: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Individual Submission >>>>> Number of pages: 9 >>>>> >>>>> Abstract: >>>>> =A0 Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile IPv6 protocols require the >>>>> =A0 signaling messages between the mobile node and home agent to be >>>>> =A0 secured. =A0However security for the user plane/traffic is option= al and >>>>> =A0 is a choice left to the mobile node. =A0This document proposes >>>>> =A0 extensions to Mobile IPv6 signaling which enables the user plane >>>>> =A0 traffic to be secured on a need or on-demand basis. =A0The mobile= node >>>>> =A0 or the home agent can request at any time security for the user p= lane >>>>> =A0 traffic. =A0Security for user plane traffic can be triggered as a >>>>> =A0 result of policy or, mobility or, at the user's choice. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> > > From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Tue Jul 19 14:03:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4350121F8B11 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:03:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5lUqyUj1s7PI for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-sa02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4D721F8B10 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh104.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.30]) by mgw-sa02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p6JL3nSu004781; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:03:49 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:03:49 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-003.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.58) by NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 23:03:48 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-024.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.4.61]) by 008-AM1MMR1-003.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.58]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.002; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 23:03:48 +0200 From: To: , Thread-Topic: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHMQB+/vTiCYkVQrE2OABRQFeV53pTqVUQAgAaeN0mAAsWbgA== Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:03:48 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.133] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2011 21:03:49.0549 (UTC) FILETIME=[5B57EDD0:01CC4657] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:03:54 -0000 Sri, Comments inline:=20 On 7/17/11 2:43 PM, "ext Sri Gundavelli" wrote: >Raj: > >I've reviwed this draft. Clarifying questions. > > > >1. New Mobility option > >> data contains a location in XML format as defined in RFC5139 > >I'm bit surprised on the need to carry Civic Location info. I thought it >is >intended for human interpretation. Ex: Building 24, 2nd Floor, in front of >Starbucks, when this location info in this format is carried in MIP >binding >option, how can the home agent make use of it realistically ? I'm not >sure, >beyond the "S" flag the draft proposes, if this new mobility option is >needed ? The draft is also not clear on the aspect of negotiation. It >appears to be more a request in the form of "S" flag in the draft. The location is geolocation in lat/long terms. Format could be similar to what is being specified in geopriv or LOST. The intent is that the geolocation aspect of the MN in the BU will/may provide sufficient indication to the HA if security for the data plane is needed. Geolocation info of the MN is one of the parameters which can aid the HA in making a decision about switching on security for the traffic and hence the option in this I-D. > > >2. Use of IKEv2/RFC 4877 > >If the MN is in a location where it decides to enable security protection >for the data traffic, it can certainly establish an IPsec SA for the >tunnel >mode ESP. Wondering, if this needs to be achieved over a MIP control plane >and the advantages with that approach ? Even if this needs to be >determined >after the MIP session set up, still there needs to be IKEv2 protocol >exchange for creating the SA ? Nothing stops either the HA or the MN to >create an SA for the tunnel mode ESP. I guess you are missing the point. An MN may create an IPsec SA for the data plane as well using IKEv2. But it is not required that traffic actually flow via this SA. MIP6 does not have a policy or mechanism as to when security for the data plane is applied. This I-D is addressing the issue by providing a means by which security for traffic can be switched on. An MN may create an Ipsec SA at the time of registration for the data plane as well but it is not required that traffic be secured with that SA. =20 > > >3. General question > >The HA is providing IP mobility service for the mobile node's home >address. >From the mobile node, or a correspondent node perspective, the home agent >is >just a pass through device. Securing the MN-HA link can certainly protects >all the traffic for some part of the path segment, but it is not >sufficient. >If the argument is that, this is also a consideration for mobility >service, >as Julien/Raj or some one commented when it was presented, but I could not >agree either way in my head, if this is really a service that the home >agent >needs to offer, or if it should be between the traffic flow end points. You can consider the HA as an entity which resides in your home network. Securing the link between the MN and the HA when it is attached via a public access network or in a domain which can be viewed as untrusted is sufficient in many cases. This I-D is not attempting to solve e2e security for the traffic. > >4. Granularity/Traffic Selectors for Protection > >The mobile node may decide not to secure all traffic, as there is some >pandora/youtube or other garbage traffic, which does not require >protection. >The approach here seems to be enable or disable data plane security. Why >not >try this with the DSMIP traffic flow selectors, as part of access >selection >for a flow, adding a bit to turn or off security might be an option ? You >get the granularity for traffic protection as well. You could have finer granularity using flow mobility classifiers. However this I-D is more focused on providing a mechanism whereby security for the user plane traffic is switched on either by the MN or the HA at runtime. -Raj > > >Regards >Sri > > > > > > > > >On 7/13/11 2:40 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" > >wrote: > >>=20 >> We have posted a new version of the I-D. This does not incorporate the >> review comments from Julien L., Kent Leung, Stefano Faccin and Jouni >> Korhonen. We hope to do that in Rev 3 of the I-D in the next few weeks. >>=20 >> -Raj >>=20 >> On 7/11/11 6:10 PM, "ext internet-drafts@ietf.org" >> wrote: >>=20 >>> A new version of I-D, draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt has been successfully >>> submitted by Basavaraj Patil and posted to the IETF repository. >>>=20 >>> Filename: draft-bajko-mext-sod >>> Revision: 02 >>> Title: Security on Demand for Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile >>> IPv6 >>> Creation date: 2011-07-12 >>> WG ID: Individual Submission >>> Number of pages: 9 >>>=20 >>> Abstract: >>> Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile IPv6 protocols require the >>> signaling messages between the mobile node and home agent to be >>> secured. However security for the user plane/traffic is optional and >>> is a choice left to the mobile node. This document proposes >>> extensions to Mobile IPv6 signaling which enables the user plane >>> traffic to be secured on a need or on-demand basis. The mobile node >>> or the home agent can request at any time security for the user plane >>> traffic. Security for user plane traffic can be triggered as a >>> result of policy or, mobility or, at the user's choice. >>>=20 >>> =20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > From sgundave@cisco.com Tue Jul 19 22:29:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F03F21F899D for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:29:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.009 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.806, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3mMitnxVWhSl for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:29:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA8521F89C1 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:29:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=9130; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311139756; x=1312349356; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RFmmL5DqPvoRpWPxYXooC+6sx9V7ZUwWlkO6rC52F1Q=; b=bm97409sY9dUt36X6S8qUhPy5P0WKqK98BRqQfvifBrqT8nBLLA9xBLp ARgXCmRwixtZpSVbXxVVY5htJEbLB4lBvdVAgOjsc/nWwvukkhxgrGL51 6vR3RFPwXYtoYLKtG0A43RA/Qy86SiStVVs5bMVohrt7SeaerX4mCQ3mj Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAD5nJk6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABTpnFwd4h8pkSeM4Y9BIcmL4sZhRCEWIcV X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,233,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="4600319" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2011 05:29:15 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6K5TFMX018417; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:29:15 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:29:14 -0700 Received: from 10.32.246.213 ([10.32.246.213]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:29:13 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427 Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:29:11 -0700 From: Sri Gundavelli To: Julien Laganier Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt Thread-Index: AcxGnfRW70EPyHmf4EagxmKwr5rH1w== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2011 05:29:14.0706 (UTC) FILETIME=[F68BAB20:01CC469D] Cc: mext@ietf.org, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:29:17 -0000 Hi Julien, On 7/19/11 8:09 AM, "Julien Laganier" wrote: > Hi Sri, >=20 > With the risk of repeating myself: the role of IKE is to negotiate > security associations between hosts. The security associations permits > the enforcement of the security policy. This draft is concerned with a > mechanism allowing the MN and the HA to agree on the security policy > that governs exchange of data traffic between them. >=20 Sure, I understand that part about moving the decision logic to MIP control plane, and control the IPsec layer ... > I am also not sure why there would be a need for more granularity. I > understood that the motivation between the draft is to be able to turn > on and off the IP layer (IPsec) protection of data traffic based on > the protection offered by an access network to which the MN attaches, > typically at layer 2 (e.g., 802.11). I don' t know why what traffic > gets or does not get protected would need to be negotiated dynamically > based on the context in which the MN is, e.g., a hotel hotspot vs. a > corporate Wi-Fi. To me that seems (semi-)static... >=20 Enabling security on the data sessions comes at high-resource requirement o= n the gateway. If the access network where the mobile node is attached to doe= s not provide any security service, the MN can decide to turn on the security= , but allowing that on select streams will be useful. Do I care, if my youtub= e stream goes unsecure, but I may care for my SIP flow. It can be a on/off switch too .., any case its not orthogonal to the base principle of, MN and HA agree on the security policy for the data traffic between them, as we talk above ... Sri > --julien >=20 > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Sri Gundavelli wrot= e: >> Hi Julien, >>=20 >> Thanks for your response. Two points: >>=20 >> - The exchange of security policy in this draft, the semantics appear to= be >> a boolean in nature. I'm ignoring the =A0new civic location info option to= be >> carried in the request, as I cannot realistically tie any security polic= y >> around that data element containing a street address. Unless, I >> misunderstood. >>=20 >> - If I look at our IPsec implementation (should be close to any other >> standard implementation), the security policy configured on the Ipsec pe= ers, >> allows the requestor to ask security services, say =A0X and Y. Now, the pe= er >> can ask for X, Y, or X+Y. Translating this to MIPv6 usage, the mobile no= de >> can ask for SA's for the control plane security and additionally the SA'= s >> for data plane security. Now, if this is about moving the decision point= of >> data plane security to MIP control plane from the Ipsec layer, each time >> there is an IKEv2 request, the request needs to be passed to the MIP con= trol >> plane, which seems to be one more level of indirection. Its not clear to= me, >> how it needs to be implemented. May be extending PF_Key interface to all= ow >> Ipsec module to get authorization from MIPv6 is another approach. >>=20 >> The draft needs to have a paragraph on the motivation covering these >> aspects, the limitations in the current decoupled SA negotiation model. >>=20 >> Also, providing some granularity around traffic selection for protection >> will be more useful, as supposed to securing all data traffic, as I say = in >> point #4 below. >>=20 >> I'm not opposing or supporting this draft, just trying to understand. >>=20 >>=20 >> Sri >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On 7/18/11 11:47 AM, "Julien Laganier" wrote: >>=20 >>> Hi Sri, >>>=20 >>> Thanks for reviewing the draft. Re: point #2 below, IKEv2 is a mean >>> for HA and MN to negotiate IPsec Security Association. My >>> understanding of this draft is that it provides a mean for HA and MN >>> to negotiate the IPsec Security Policy that govern exchange of data >>> traffic between these two. As such the two are not exclusive or >>> redundant, but complimentary. >>>=20 >>> What do you think? >>>=20 >>> --julien >>>=20 >>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Sri Gundavelli w= rote: >>>> Raj: >>>>=20 >>>> I've reviwed this draft. Clarifying questions. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> 1. New Mobility option >>>>=20 >>>>> data contains a location in XML format as defined in RFC5139 >>>>=20 >>>> I'm bit surprised on the need to carry Civic Location info. I thought = it is >>>> intended for human interpretation. Ex: Building 24, 2nd Floor, in fron= t of >>>> Starbucks, when this location info in this format is carried in MIP bi= nding >>>> option, how can the home agent make use of it realistically ? I'm not = sure, >>>> beyond the "S" flag the draft proposes, if this new mobility option is >>>> needed ? The draft is also not clear on the aspect of negotiation. It >>>> appears to be more a request in the form of "S" flag in the draft. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> 2. Use of IKEv2/RFC 4877 >>>>=20 >>>> If the MN is in a location where it decides to enable security protect= ion >>>> for the data traffic, it can certainly establish an IPsec SA for the t= unnel >>>> mode ESP. Wondering, if this needs to be achieved over a MIP control p= lane >>>> and the advantages with that approach ? Even if this needs to be deter= mined >>>> after the MIP session set up, still there needs to be IKEv2 protocol >>>> exchange for creating the SA ? Nothing stops either the HA or the MN t= o >>>> create an SA for the tunnel mode ESP. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> 3. General question >>>>=20 >>>> The HA is providing IP mobility service for the mobile node's home add= ress. >>>> From the mobile node, or a correspondent node perspective, the home ag= ent >>>> is >>>> just a pass through device. Securing the MN-HA link can certainly prot= ects >>>> all the traffic for some part of the path segment, but it is not >>>> sufficient. >>>> If the argument is that, this is also a consideration for mobility ser= vice, >>>> as Julien/Raj or some one commented when it was presented, but I could= not >>>> agree either way in my head, if this is really a service that the home >>>> agent >>>> needs to offer, or if it should be between the traffic flow end points= . >>>>=20 >>>> 4. Granularity/Traffic Selectors for Protection >>>>=20 >>>> The mobile node may decide not to secure all traffic, as there is some >>>> pandora/youtube or other garbage traffic, which does not require >>>> protection. >>>> The approach here seems to be enable or disable data plane security. W= hy >>>> not >>>> try this with the DSMIP traffic flow selectors, as part of access sele= ction >>>> for a flow, adding a bit to turn or off security might be an option ? = You >>>> get the granularity for traffic protection as well. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Regards >>>> Sri >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On 7/13/11 2:40 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" >>>> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> We have posted a new version of the I-D. This does not incorporate th= e >>>>> review comments from Julien L., Kent Leung, Stefano Faccin and Jouni >>>>> Korhonen. We hope to do that in Rev 3 of the I-D in the next few week= s. >>>>>=20 >>>>> -Raj >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 7/11/11 6:10 PM, "ext internet-drafts@ietf.org" >>>>> wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt has been successfu= lly >>>>>> submitted by Basavaraj Patil and posted to the IETF repository. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Filename: =A0 =A0 draft-bajko-mext-sod >>>>>> Revision: =A0 =A0 02 >>>>>> Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Security on Demand for Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mob= ile >>>>>> IPv6 >>>>>> Creation date: =A0 =A0 2011-07-12 >>>>>> WG ID: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Individual Submission >>>>>> Number of pages: 9 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Abstract: >>>>>> =A0 Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile IPv6 protocols require the >>>>>> =A0 signaling messages between the mobile node and home agent to be >>>>>> =A0 secured. =A0However security for the user plane/traffic is optional = and >>>>>> =A0 is a choice left to the mobile node. =A0This document proposes >>>>>> =A0 extensions to Mobile IPv6 signaling which enables the user plane >>>>>> =A0 traffic to be secured on a need or on-demand basis. =A0The mobile no= de >>>>>> =A0 or the home agent can request at any time security for the user pl= ane >>>>>> =A0 traffic. =A0Security for user plane traffic can be triggered as a >>>>>> =A0 result of policy or, mobility or, at the user's choice. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 From sgundave@cisco.com Tue Jul 19 22:42:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F85521F8997 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:42:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.586 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.987, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k1L7QbUzWPPg for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D69721F891D for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:42:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=7168; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311140572; x=1312350172; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=W4sxPvMI03MFYkEG9yYJ94YkLEYaEWuxMsd1r2fyVS4=; b=koHh7hF2Ww9HXORb59b2TnqSVfnGq1ypxOWE1XtT4zlbKBKSR3f5z/U/ Dqafk9EDkcUXrI6JCJJyD8hzEGlDj9QreB36tiLqSj9F9d5NoCm03lkM1 KWoskIp2XOCSJ0T1d108FXTUrnUUp6ZH5ivTVh2c9A/kIO8KeuMVU0V3I c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAExqJk6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABTp2F3iHymWp42hj0Eh1WLGYUQi20 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,233,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="4603764" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2011 05:42:51 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6K5gpeI024670; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:42:51 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:42:50 -0700 Received: from 10.32.246.213 ([10.32.246.213]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:42:49 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427 Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:42:41 -0700 From: Sri Gundavelli To: , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHMQB+/vTiCYkVQrE2OABRQFeV53pTqVUQAgAaeN0mAAsWbgIABBlgj In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2011 05:42:50.0745 (UTC) FILETIME=[DCF15690:01CC469F] Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:42:53 -0000 Raj: Inline ... On 7/19/11 2:03 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" wrote: > > Sri, > > Comments inline: > > On 7/17/11 2:43 PM, "ext Sri Gundavelli" wrote: > >> Raj: >> >> I've reviwed this draft. Clarifying questions. >> >> >> >> 1. New Mobility option >> >>> data contains a location in XML format as defined in RFC5139 >> >> I'm bit surprised on the need to carry Civic Location info. I thought it >> is >> intended for human interpretation. Ex: Building 24, 2nd Floor, in front of >> Starbucks, when this location info in this format is carried in MIP >> binding >> option, how can the home agent make use of it realistically ? I'm not >> sure, >> beyond the "S" flag the draft proposes, if this new mobility option is >> needed ? The draft is also not clear on the aspect of negotiation. It >> appears to be more a request in the form of "S" flag in the draft. > > The location is geolocation in lat/long terms. Format could be similar to > what is being specified in geopriv or LOST. > The intent is that the geolocation aspect of the MN in the BU will/may > provide sufficient indication to the HA if security for the data plane is > needed. Geolocation info of the MN is one of the parameters which can aid > the HA in making a decision about switching on security for the traffic > and hence the option in this I-D. > The format I expected is some thing like this. I thought the 5139 is not covering this. If that is the covered there, its fine. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |N| Latitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Longitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >> >> >> 2. Use of IKEv2/RFC 4877 >> >> If the MN is in a location where it decides to enable security protection >> for the data traffic, it can certainly establish an IPsec SA for the >> tunnel >> mode ESP. Wondering, if this needs to be achieved over a MIP control plane >> and the advantages with that approach ? Even if this needs to be >> determined >> after the MIP session set up, still there needs to be IKEv2 protocol >> exchange for creating the SA ? Nothing stops either the HA or the MN to >> create an SA for the tunnel mode ESP. > > I guess you are missing the point. An MN may create an IPsec SA for the > data plane as well using IKEv2. But it is not required that traffic > actually flow via this SA. MIP6 does not have a policy or mechanism as to > when security for the data plane is applied. This I-D is addressing the > issue by providing a means by which security for traffic can be switched > on. An MN may create an Ipsec SA at the time of registration for the data > plane as well but it is not required that traffic be secured with that SA. > > but it is not required that traffic be secured with that SA. I understood the principle of moving this nego (enable/disable to MIP control plane. But, I did not understand the last line. If there is SA for tunnel mode ESP, can the HA not drop the traffic not protected with the negotiated IPsec SA ? >> >> 3. General question >> >> The HA is providing IP mobility service for the mobile node's home >> address. >> From the mobile node, or a correspondent node perspective, the home agent >> is >> just a pass through device. Securing the MN-HA link can certainly protects >> all the traffic for some part of the path segment, but it is not >> sufficient. >> If the argument is that, this is also a consideration for mobility >> service, >> as Julien/Raj or some one commented when it was presented, but I could not >> agree either way in my head, if this is really a service that the home >> agent >> needs to offer, or if it should be between the traffic flow end points. > > You can consider the HA as an entity which resides in your home network. > Securing the link between the MN and the HA when it is attached via a > public access network or in a domain which can be viewed as untrusted is > sufficient in many cases. This I-D is not attempting to solve e2e security > for the traffic. > Ok. >> >> 4. Granularity/Traffic Selectors for Protection >> >> The mobile node may decide not to secure all traffic, as there is some >> pandora/youtube or other garbage traffic, which does not require >> protection. >> The approach here seems to be enable or disable data plane security. Why >> not >> try this with the DSMIP traffic flow selectors, as part of access >> selection >> for a flow, adding a bit to turn or off security might be an option ? You >> get the granularity for traffic protection as well. > > You could have finer granularity using flow mobility classifiers. However > this I-D is more focused on providing a mechanism whereby security for the > user plane traffic is switched on either by the MN or the HA at runtime. > Ok. I assume this on/off switch can still allow some out of band policy on what flows are protected. I guess I was not clear on how this impacts the Ipsec/IKE configuration ... Sri > -Raj > >> >> >> Regards >> Sri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7/13/11 2:40 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" >> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> We have posted a new version of the I-D. This does not incorporate the >>> review comments from Julien L., Kent Leung, Stefano Faccin and Jouni >>> Korhonen. We hope to do that in Rev 3 of the I-D in the next few weeks. >>> >>> -Raj >>> >>> On 7/11/11 6:10 PM, "ext internet-drafts@ietf.org" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> A new version of I-D, draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt has been successfully >>>> submitted by Basavaraj Patil and posted to the IETF repository. >>>> >>>> Filename: draft-bajko-mext-sod >>>> Revision: 02 >>>> Title: Security on Demand for Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile >>>> IPv6 >>>> Creation date: 2011-07-12 >>>> WG ID: Individual Submission >>>> Number of pages: 9 >>>> >>>> Abstract: >>>> Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile IPv6 protocols require the >>>> signaling messages between the mobile node and home agent to be >>>> secured. However security for the user plane/traffic is optional and >>>> is a choice left to the mobile node. This document proposes >>>> extensions to Mobile IPv6 signaling which enables the user plane >>>> traffic to be secured on a need or on-demand basis. The mobile node >>>> or the home agent can request at any time security for the user plane >>>> traffic. Security for user plane traffic can be triggered as a >>>> result of policy or, mobility or, at the user's choice. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > From rkuntz@us.toyota-itc.com Tue Jul 19 22:48:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C6721F8892 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:48:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id puNAERKNGe0p for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3171B21F886A for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f170.google.com ([209.85.214.170]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob102.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTiZsCG7IGvH+JRRxSbPlmSTfBUF1tBxD@postini.com; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:47:56 PDT Received: by mail-iw0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 36so4566480iwn.15 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:47:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.27.228 with SMTP id j36mr7701975ibc.117.1311140872252; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:47:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.100] (c-24-130-148-164.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.130.148.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hq1sm7143684icc.14.2011.07.19.22.47.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:47:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Romain KUNTZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:47:50 -0700 Message-Id: To: mext@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [MEXT] Review of draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:48:00 -0000 Hello, This draft already received multiple thorough reviews in the past and is = IMHO already in a very nice shape. Beside, it's been a long time there = is an implementation of HARP (based on version 04) with support of both = Home Agent switch messages and VHARP. The code is freely available here: = http://software.nautilus6.org/HAHA/index.php Some performance evaluation based on that implementation can be read in = this paper: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=3D4976739 As for the draft itself, I have a couple of minor comments: - Some considerations should be added (in section 4.1) about the Hello = interval field of the HA HELLO message. As HARP can work on the same = link as well as distributed over multiple links, the Hello Interval = should be carefully chosen according to the deployments.=20 - Any specific reason why the MAC_HARELIABILITY_TIMEOUT parameter is = prefixed with "MAC_"? Thanks, romain= From Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com Wed Jul 20 11:02:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D0B621F8B0D for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:02:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Ek7CRYEFJ2a for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5491321F8892 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh104.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.30]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p6KI278Q015357; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:02:07 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:02:06 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-005.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.60) by NOK-am1MHUB-01.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:02:06 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.7.225]) by 008-AM1MMR1-005.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.60]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.002; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:02:05 +0200 From: To: , , Thread-Topic: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHMQB+/1F+bo0/MRUyl7E1PEf5OUpTqqRgAgAYo3ACAAzr6AIAAkPmAgADu4XA= Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:02:05 +0000 Message-ID: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47603157A@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [204.15.0.66] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2011 18:02:06.0414 (UTC) FILETIME=[22FB4EE0:01CC4707] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:02:10 -0000 Sri, The reference in the draft is wrong (rfc5139). The correct reference would = be rfc5491, but that uses xml encoding and might be too verbose. An alterna= tive would be to use the binary encoding defined in rfc6225. -Gabor -----Original Message----- From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext= Sri Gundavelli Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:43 PM To: Patil Basavaraj (Nokia-CIC/Dallas); mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-0= 2.txt Raj: Inline ... On 7/19/11 2:03 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" wrote: >=20 > Sri, >=20 > Comments inline:=20 >=20 > On 7/17/11 2:43 PM, "ext Sri Gundavelli" wrote: >=20 >> Raj: >>=20 >> I've reviwed this draft. Clarifying questions. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> 1. New Mobility option >>=20 >>> data contains a location in XML format as defined in RFC5139 >>=20 >> I'm bit surprised on the need to carry Civic Location info. I thought=20 >> it is intended for human interpretation. Ex: Building 24, 2nd Floor,=20 >> in front of Starbucks, when this location info in this format is=20 >> carried in MIP binding option, how can the home agent make use of it=20 >> realistically ? I'm not sure, beyond the "S" flag the draft proposes,=20 >> if this new mobility option is needed ? The draft is also not clear=20 >> on the aspect of negotiation. It appears to be more a request in the=20 >> form of "S" flag in the draft. >=20 > The location is geolocation in lat/long terms. Format could be similar=20 > to what is being specified in geopriv or LOST. > The intent is that the geolocation aspect of the MN in the BU will/may=20 > provide sufficient indication to the HA if security for the data plane=20 > is needed. Geolocation info of the MN is one of the parameters which=20 > can aid the HA in making a decision about switching on security for=20 > the traffic and hence the option in this I-D. >=20 The format I expected is some thing like this. I thought the 5139 is not co= vering this. If that is the covered there, its fine. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |N| Latitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Longitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> 2. Use of IKEv2/RFC 4877 >>=20 >> If the MN is in a location where it decides to enable security=20 >> protection for the data traffic, it can certainly establish an IPsec=20 >> SA for the tunnel mode ESP. Wondering, if this needs to be achieved=20 >> over a MIP control plane and the advantages with that approach ? Even=20 >> if this needs to be determined after the MIP session set up, still=20 >> there needs to be IKEv2 protocol exchange for creating the SA ?=20 >> Nothing stops either the HA or the MN to create an SA for the tunnel=20 >> mode ESP. >=20 > I guess you are missing the point. An MN may create an IPsec SA for=20 > the data plane as well using IKEv2. But it is not required that=20 > traffic actually flow via this SA. MIP6 does not have a policy or=20 > mechanism as to when security for the data plane is applied. This I-D=20 > is addressing the issue by providing a means by which security for=20 > traffic can be switched on. An MN may create an Ipsec SA at the time=20 > of registration for the data plane as well but it is not required that tr= affic be secured with that SA. > =20 > but it is not required that traffic be secured with that SA. I understood the principle of moving this nego (enable/disable to MIP contr= ol plane. But, I did not understand the last line. If there is SA for tunne= l mode ESP, can the HA not drop the traffic not protected with the negotiat= ed IPsec SA ? >>=20 >> 3. General question >>=20 >> The HA is providing IP mobility service for the mobile node's home=20 >> address. >> From the mobile node, or a correspondent node perspective, the home=20 >> agent is just a pass through device. Securing the MN-HA link can=20 >> certainly protects all the traffic for some part of the path segment,=20 >> but it is not sufficient. >> If the argument is that, this is also a consideration for mobility=20 >> service, as Julien/Raj or some one commented when it was presented,=20 >> but I could not agree either way in my head, if this is really a=20 >> service that the home agent needs to offer, or if it should be=20 >> between the traffic flow end points. >=20 > You can consider the HA as an entity which resides in your home network. > Securing the link between the MN and the HA when it is attached via a=20 > public access network or in a domain which can be viewed as untrusted=20 > is sufficient in many cases. This I-D is not attempting to solve e2e=20 > security for the traffic. >=20 Ok. >>=20 >> 4. Granularity/Traffic Selectors for Protection >>=20 >> The mobile node may decide not to secure all traffic, as there is=20 >> some pandora/youtube or other garbage traffic, which does not require=20 >> protection. >> The approach here seems to be enable or disable data plane security.=20 >> Why not try this with the DSMIP traffic flow selectors, as part of=20 >> access selection for a flow, adding a bit to turn or off security=20 >> might be an option ? You get the granularity for traffic protection=20 >> as well. >=20 > You could have finer granularity using flow mobility classifiers.=20 > However this I-D is more focused on providing a mechanism whereby=20 > security for the user plane traffic is switched on either by the MN or th= e HA at runtime. >=20 Ok. I assume this on/off switch can still allow some out of band policy on = what flows are protected. I guess I was not clear on how this impacts the I= psec/IKE configuration ... Sri > -Raj >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Regards >> Sri >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On 7/13/11 2:40 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" >> >> wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>> We have posted a new version of the I-D. This does not incorporate=20 >>> the review comments from Julien L., Kent Leung, Stefano Faccin and=20 >>> Jouni Korhonen. We hope to do that in Rev 3 of the I-D in the next few = weeks. >>>=20 >>> -Raj >>>=20 >>> On 7/11/11 6:10 PM, "ext internet-drafts@ietf.org" >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>>> A new version of I-D, draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt has been=20 >>>> successfully submitted by Basavaraj Patil and posted to the IETF repos= itory. >>>>=20 >>>> Filename: draft-bajko-mext-sod >>>> Revision: 02 >>>> Title: Security on Demand for Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobil= e >>>> IPv6 >>>> Creation date: 2011-07-12 >>>> WG ID: Individual Submission >>>> Number of pages: 9 >>>>=20 >>>> Abstract: >>>> Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile IPv6 protocols require the >>>> signaling messages between the mobile node and home agent to be >>>> secured. However security for the user plane/traffic is optional an= d >>>> is a choice left to the mobile node. This document proposes >>>> extensions to Mobile IPv6 signaling which enables the user plane >>>> traffic to be secured on a need or on-demand basis. The mobile node >>>> or the home agent can request at any time security for the user plan= e >>>> traffic. Security for user plane traffic can be triggered as a >>>> result of policy or, mobility or, at the user's choice. >>>>=20 >>>> =20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From yokota@kddilabs.jp Thu Jul 21 04:31:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2FFE21F88A1 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 04:31:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mdJ4OhsvVXIB for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 04:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459FA21F8554 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 04:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA9E91748163 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:31:30 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NZYJajPDGTah for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:31:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.145]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A91B017480D3 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:31:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) by ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78CA31B866 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:30:09 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4E280E0C.5020807@kddilabs.jp> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:31:24 +0900 From: Hidetoshi Yokota User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext@ietf.org References: <4E1D4DEC.2060103@it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: <4E1D4DEC.2060103@it.uc3m.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:31:37 -0000 Hi Marcelo and all, This document has been long discussed and is stable enough now. I have no significant comment on it and support to move forward. Only very very minor editorial comment: In Section 4.7, s/Count IPv6 IPv6 Addr/Count IPv6 Addr/ Regards, -- Hidetoshi (2011/07/13 16:49), marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > This note issues the WGLC for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09. > > Please send your comments before the 1st of august. > > You can find the draft at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-09 > > Regards, marcelo > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > From sgundave@cisco.com Thu Jul 21 09:10:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB5921F89B8 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.47 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.871, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wOXxwLxlhry7 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D10E21F898F for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=8247; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311264633; x=1312474233; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZMECAjUnJMHjcJ4Ee+NwZeOwijOj5O3eYeOxPTkfpTE=; b=ZkDm8hefhFzbb2ucOiS11PS1CJLRaPX4HX1Xf/lfExNMGKTVPsB7Rqqr +BsK9DzzDvLmyA5nyNp3qgVjg4diYqokJg66BME+GbDXhltIWqY/pFgz/ M4Kz6pDLLJ76H7fyXZRT4RUXLdA51+CvwfhbucjlmCXJEjEOMAC9N/n+4 A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvAAAE9OKE6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABUl3CPUHeIfJ1BnimGPgSHVYsZhRCLbQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,240,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="5160287" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2011 16:10:32 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6LGAVYT014001; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:10:31 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:10:31 -0700 Received: from 10.32.246.213 ([10.32.246.213]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:10:31 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:10:27 -0700 From: Sri Gundavelli To: , , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHMQB+/1F+bo0/MRUyl7E1PEf5OUpTqqRgAgAYo3ACAAzr6AIAAkPmAgADu4XCAAXRg9A== In-Reply-To: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47603157A@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2011 16:10:31.0747 (UTC) FILETIME=[B70FF130:01CC47C0] Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:10:35 -0000 On 7/20/11 11:02 AM, "Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com" wrote: > Sri, > The reference in the draft is wrong (rfc5139). The correct reference would be > rfc5491, but that uses xml encoding and might be too verbose. An alternative > would be to use the binary encoding defined in rfc6225. > > -Gabor Thanks Gabor for the clarification. Sri > > -----Original Message----- > From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext > Sri Gundavelli > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:43 PM > To: Patil Basavaraj (Nokia-CIC/Dallas); mext@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt > > Raj: > > Inline ... > > > On 7/19/11 2:03 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" > wrote: > >> >> Sri, >> >> Comments inline: >> >> On 7/17/11 2:43 PM, "ext Sri Gundavelli" wrote: >> >>> Raj: >>> >>> I've reviwed this draft. Clarifying questions. >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. New Mobility option >>> >>>> data contains a location in XML format as defined in RFC5139 >>> >>> I'm bit surprised on the need to carry Civic Location info. I thought >>> it is intended for human interpretation. Ex: Building 24, 2nd Floor, >>> in front of Starbucks, when this location info in this format is >>> carried in MIP binding option, how can the home agent make use of it >>> realistically ? I'm not sure, beyond the "S" flag the draft proposes, >>> if this new mobility option is needed ? The draft is also not clear >>> on the aspect of negotiation. It appears to be more a request in the >>> form of "S" flag in the draft. >> >> The location is geolocation in lat/long terms. Format could be similar >> to what is being specified in geopriv or LOST. >> The intent is that the geolocation aspect of the MN in the BU will/may >> provide sufficient indication to the HA if security for the data plane >> is needed. Geolocation info of the MN is one of the parameters which >> can aid the HA in making a decision about switching on security for >> the traffic and hence the option in this I-D. >> > > The format I expected is some thing like this. I thought the 5139 is not > covering this. If that is the covered there, its fine. > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |N| Latitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |E| Longitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > >> >>> >>> >>> 2. Use of IKEv2/RFC 4877 >>> >>> If the MN is in a location where it decides to enable security >>> protection for the data traffic, it can certainly establish an IPsec >>> SA for the tunnel mode ESP. Wondering, if this needs to be achieved >>> over a MIP control plane and the advantages with that approach ? Even >>> if this needs to be determined after the MIP session set up, still >>> there needs to be IKEv2 protocol exchange for creating the SA ? >>> Nothing stops either the HA or the MN to create an SA for the tunnel >>> mode ESP. >> >> I guess you are missing the point. An MN may create an IPsec SA for >> the data plane as well using IKEv2. But it is not required that >> traffic actually flow via this SA. MIP6 does not have a policy or >> mechanism as to when security for the data plane is applied. This I-D >> is addressing the issue by providing a means by which security for >> traffic can be switched on. An MN may create an Ipsec SA at the time >> of registration for the data plane as well but it is not required that >> traffic be secured with that SA. >> > >> but it is not required that traffic be secured with that SA. > > I understood the principle of moving this nego (enable/disable to MIP control > plane. But, I did not understand the last line. If there is SA for tunnel mode > ESP, can the HA not drop the traffic not protected with the negotiated IPsec > SA ? > > > >>> >>> 3. General question >>> >>> The HA is providing IP mobility service for the mobile node's home >>> address. >>> From the mobile node, or a correspondent node perspective, the home >>> agent is just a pass through device. Securing the MN-HA link can >>> certainly protects all the traffic for some part of the path segment, >>> but it is not sufficient. >>> If the argument is that, this is also a consideration for mobility >>> service, as Julien/Raj or some one commented when it was presented, >>> but I could not agree either way in my head, if this is really a >>> service that the home agent needs to offer, or if it should be >>> between the traffic flow end points. >> >> You can consider the HA as an entity which resides in your home network. >> Securing the link between the MN and the HA when it is attached via a >> public access network or in a domain which can be viewed as untrusted >> is sufficient in many cases. This I-D is not attempting to solve e2e >> security for the traffic. >> > > Ok. > > >>> >>> 4. Granularity/Traffic Selectors for Protection >>> >>> The mobile node may decide not to secure all traffic, as there is >>> some pandora/youtube or other garbage traffic, which does not require >>> protection. >>> The approach here seems to be enable or disable data plane security. >>> Why not try this with the DSMIP traffic flow selectors, as part of >>> access selection for a flow, adding a bit to turn or off security >>> might be an option ? You get the granularity for traffic protection >>> as well. >> >> You could have finer granularity using flow mobility classifiers. >> However this I-D is more focused on providing a mechanism whereby >> security for the user plane traffic is switched on either by the MN or the HA >> at runtime. >> > > Ok. I assume this on/off switch can still allow some out of band policy on > what flows are protected. I guess I was not clear on how this impacts the > Ipsec/IKE configuration ... > > > > Sri > > > > > >> -Raj >> >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> Sri >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/13/11 2:40 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> We have posted a new version of the I-D. This does not incorporate >>>> the review comments from Julien L., Kent Leung, Stefano Faccin and >>>> Jouni Korhonen. We hope to do that in Rev 3 of the I-D in the next few >>>> weeks. >>>> >>>> -Raj >>>> >>>> On 7/11/11 6:10 PM, "ext internet-drafts@ietf.org" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt has been >>>>> successfully submitted by Basavaraj Patil and posted to the IETF >>>>> repository. >>>>> >>>>> Filename: draft-bajko-mext-sod >>>>> Revision: 02 >>>>> Title: Security on Demand for Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile >>>>> IPv6 >>>>> Creation date: 2011-07-12 >>>>> WG ID: Individual Submission >>>>> Number of pages: 9 >>>>> >>>>> Abstract: >>>>> Mobile IPv6 and Dual-stack Mobile IPv6 protocols require the >>>>> signaling messages between the mobile node and home agent to be >>>>> secured. However security for the user plane/traffic is optional and >>>>> is a choice left to the mobile node. This document proposes >>>>> extensions to Mobile IPv6 signaling which enables the user plane >>>>> traffic to be secured on a need or on-demand basis. The mobile node >>>>> or the home agent can request at any time security for the user plane >>>>> traffic. Security for user plane traffic can be triggered as a >>>>> result of policy or, mobility or, at the user's choice. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From rkuntz@us.toyota-itc.com Fri Jul 22 16:02:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3882821F874C for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:02:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.289 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_ABOUTYOU=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CA9uOTKnfYt7 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:02:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog117.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog117.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1876121F86DF for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f47.google.com ([209.85.210.47]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob117.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTioBdOF/kVDHlcSml7i5iKofthA0cRnL@postini.com; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:02:14 PDT Received: by mail-pz0-f47.google.com with SMTP id 36so5341191pzk.6 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.37.68 with SMTP id w4mr3129080pbj.179.1311375732786; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from saby-lt.paloalto.toyota-itc.com ([206.132.173.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k8sm2096277pbk.47.2011.07.22.16.02.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:02:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Romain KUNTZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:02:09 -0700 Message-Id: <5ABC57DC-9BF5-4626-B51F-DD50222BA5CB@us.toyota-itc.com> To: mext@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [MEXT] Some questions on draft-sarikaya-mext-multicastdmm X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 23:02:15 -0000 Hello Behcet, I'm currently updating draft-kuntz-dmm-summary and was considering = including draft-sarikaya-mext-multicastdmm. However I have a few = questions about your draft. To me it seems that your proposal is not a DMM solution by itself but is = built upon draft-kassi-mobileip-dmi. Am I right? Is the exact motivation = of your proposal to support multicast on the mobile node when DMI is = used? About the solution itself: * Section 3:=20 "MN starts to receive the packets over HA-MN link from CN and MN starts to send packets with a destination option containing the previous Care-of Address as MN's Home Address (HoA) to the CN." I'm not sure why you are doing this? This sounds like route optimization = to me. * Section 6:=20 =20 "Multicast state for the mobile node is usually established when mobile node was on the link and the state in Multicast State mobility option normally must match this state and the multicast state sent by the mobile node becomes the multicast state of the mobile node when communicating over MN-HA tunnel." This sentence is quite hard to understand. Can you explain? Thank you, Romain= From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Sat Jul 23 09:36:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D5C21F84E9 for ; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:36:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.605 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.995, BAYES_05=-1.11, GB_ABOUTYOU=0.5] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8SoA0AGU79JV for ; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:36:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm2-vm1.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm2-vm1.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 71A6221F84DB for ; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:36:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.70] by nm2.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Jul 2011 16:36:26 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.46] by tm10.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Jul 2011 16:36:26 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1046.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Jul 2011 16:36:26 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 402787.74706.bm@omp1046.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 10010 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Jul 2011 16:36:25 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1311438985; bh=+4GzKsfQ8pqW9ENO9N4uO7Dcnkp4e5JqW4xxTbF/Tuo=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XQGYqBcEx4j6waV9paCpg9Yk1A33x+ISK5GfZUvAr7ZV3VLto6XyAOc9XNzvzkoOND/Uj62a62KGxndR6bDsXuqABLBRqTmNb3YnZt/gxmYFQi0Gnj9CRsDI9wf+vXJ9VxyQLjaqz1CNd7NMM+sakBve9KOzrK+ChZ1SiV61RpE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XkxLuhhnh0vTiMxa2iVvQo7j3+24So2NNwpL4ds5eRvgulqZm4fnrC++4qXGi61aCLLraaSe5Oo15+SwtxsLXZdbQbIMIVot0QowlXKMBGeUNO08Jrg2TSQHoBU7c67yM785LKDyrFAbUQBymRp3vygUnp94dESW29ALNnsEzJY=; X-YMail-OSG: 3uLFxGQVM1k_bcRzRm.LJuG4N30TU3lvNpBwBfMGf8_3Y_t 4RI5w50r1b1wTbwEuskT5gNy4DvH5fM1JEK8TNYbXQEPIVXtiULFm5E5RxLg QkrAGDC7CVL12BXE1dNEylyGo1IIGsJ8TjOLyX1o7xnZwkXsAs3h_H2bfd80 c38UK9BcU6VLu_8june6CM765YqQpDjy1iVNC81fyEXtjPX43nylFucKxNWw tG2bbvtfD1o5l_613rVShcXRmVOf13DXSZoNqYBcdRcsT_C.qFS9Dd0XJ7p8 8FsqGqv9iL_wSt99V9WikWFqUEAR__Bby8FKDsS7Uk7kAjelEx5q1MfpDRCR ntxCjRsj9NVsngiu0vEENqZAgMqtQ_UgBFqxLj6Mo1hoHcc1rPrkyKfTGYzl bsDbdDKNJh3S8TKOBAON5WlFabKNoUYXMV3.r4p2t4jj6wnrPox7RouN8Gyi sC4C2Gu1bcrvBtFu26fNxWiGgSWkV9f8C Received: from [71.170.141.239] by web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:36:25 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.310352 References: <5ABC57DC-9BF5-4626-B51F-DD50222BA5CB@us.toyota-itc.com> Message-ID: <1311438985.9673.YahooMailRC@web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:36:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Romain KUNTZ , mext@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5ABC57DC-9BF5-4626-B51F-DD50222BA5CB@us.toyota-itc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [MEXT] Some questions on draft-sarikaya-mext-multicastdmm X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:36:27 -0000 Hi Romain, Thanks for your mail. My replies inline. Regards, Behcet > Hello Behcet, > > I'm currently updating draft-kuntz-dmm-summary and was considering including >draft-sarikaya-mext-multicastdmm. However I have a few questions about your >draft. > > To me it seems that your proposal is not a DMM solution by itself but is built >upon draft-kassi-mobileip-dmi. Am I right? Is the exact motivation of your >proposal to support multicast on the mobile node when DMI is used? > My draft is intended to be a candidate for Mext WG charter item on dmm and it is inline with the discussions we had in the last Mext session on dmm, I don't remember where, was it Beijing, IETF 79? . If you are saying that cellular network application is emphasized, yes, I think that cellular networks are of course the place where we should look for deployment possibilities. I think multicast support is important and so far no other draft talks about multicast. That's why multicast is covered in my draft. > About the solution itself: > > * Section 3: > > "MN starts to receive the packets over HA-MN link from > CN and MN starts to send packets with a destination option containing > the previous Care-of Address as MN's Home Address (HoA) to the CN." > > I'm not sure why you are doing this? This sounds like route optimization to >me. > Why not? This is the behaviour MN should have because HA keeps changing, right? > * Section 6: > > "Multicast state for the mobile node is usually established when > mobile node was on the link and the state in Multicast State mobility > option normally must match this state and the multicast state sent by > the mobile node becomes the multicast state of the mobile node when > communicating over MN-HA tunnel." OK, let me clarify this in the next version. > > This sentence is quite hard to understand. Can you explain? > > > Thank you, > Romain From julien.ietf@gmail.com Mon Jul 25 11:30:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA92D21F8BB6 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:30:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.507 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7iDjR5h0t1Dr for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f176.google.com (mail-ey0-f176.google.com [209.85.215.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2949A21F8B17 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eya28 with SMTP id 28so4351173eya.21 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:30:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=TJLziLCLS80uV1d/L1sSMsGG2xxx1MNr7e3MDsGmuws=; b=a7dnLFXWej4gZyAV7eapKQyiaZ4IGRjNSLd6POMHUlmUJ7ZKgxYPHw4Msj1iycCjLM j6VrlypXjCpjcmZudIQo5QbF9ocKcVUlkiXdFR0P/VOIvBoVG5qRwRldPXYSV05etHCf 4Bg4utyvzAUiXAEw+XLD1SGHlGOFCh4qniYNE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.3.201 with SMTP id 9mr300049ebo.11.1311618647954; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.28.7 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:30:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:30:47 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Sri Gundavelli Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: mext@ietf.org, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:30:53 -0000 Hi Sri, On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Sri Gundavelli wrote: > Hi Julien, > > On 7/19/11 8:09 AM, "Julien Laganier" wrote: > >> Hi Sri, >> >> With the risk of repeating myself: the role of IKE is to negotiate >> security associations between hosts. The security associations permits >> the enforcement of the security policy. This draft is concerned with a >> mechanism allowing the MN and the HA to agree on the security policy >> that governs exchange of data traffic between them. >> > > Sure, I understand that part about moving the decision logic to MIP control > plane, and control the IPsec layer ... I might be a bit pedantic here, but to make sure we' re on the same page. We are not _moving_ any logic to MIP control plane. The SPD logic remains where it is, in the IPsec layer. What this document is about is a way for MIPv6 nodes to agree whether or not the SPD specifies protection of data traffic as specified in RFC 3776. >> I am also not sure why there would be a need for more granularity. I >> understood that the motivation between the draft is to be able to turn >> on and off the IP layer (IPsec) protection of data traffic based on >> the protection offered by an access network to which the MN attaches, >> typically at layer 2 (e.g., 802.11). I don' t know why what traffic >> gets or does not get protected would need to be negotiated dynamically >> based on the context in which the MN is, e.g., a hotel hotspot vs. a >> corporate Wi-Fi. To me that seems (semi-)static... > > Enabling security on the data sessions comes at high-resource requirement on > the gateway. If the access network where the mobile node is attached to does > not provide any security service, the MN can decide to turn on the security, > but allowing that on select streams will be useful. Do I care, if my youtube > stream goes unsecure, but I may care for my SIP flow. It can be a on/off > switch too .., any case its not orthogonal to the base principle of, MN and > HA agree on the security policy for the data traffic between them, as we > talk above ... I understand the use case you describe. In this case the user data traffic protection consists of applying ESP to only part of the traffic by setting X to the appropriate values (e.g. SIP) in the examples documented in RFC 3776. From then on the mechanism described in this draft can be used to turn ON and OFF that protection of data. In other words, the details of user data protection needs not to be agreed dynamically. What needs to be agreed on is whether or not the user data protection is needed in the first place. It might not on some radio accesses (e.g. cellular) --julien From julien.ietf@gmail.com Mon Jul 25 12:38:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B9C11E8098 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:38:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.513 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6lNZdhZT4Aaa for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f176.google.com (mail-ey0-f176.google.com [209.85.215.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60A411E8095 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eya28 with SMTP id 28so4414141eya.21 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:38:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=HyAVNjgy18Qg8fk4O5pSwpUavFstlI3nK8bQBWAW/fg=; b=u5wcENEvWCe0okpSyoixnctoszz2YuDmNt61egwaLdAl1P9RKhi/ueUHaDEzq4uVjp IwxqZGpRxbL7OUeJCqFXwKnoVViCI0Gn7ZE5SnVGjYt+kA1joq33K9oecNSg7oXZM9us zOn6Id7h96+BnAhOJE+hNk5BClnQxdRuxYinQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.28.133 with SMTP id m5mr335697ebc.87.1311622731807; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.28.7 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:38:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:38:51 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Sri Gundavelli Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: mext@ietf.org, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bajko-mext-sod-02.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:38:53 -0000 Following-up on one of the points: >>> 2. Use of IKEv2/RFC 4877 >>> >>> If the MN is in a location where it decides to enable security protection >>> for the data traffic, it can certainly establish an IPsec SA for the >>> tunnel >>> mode ESP. Wondering, if this needs to be achieved over a MIP control plane >>> and the advantages with that approach ? Even if this needs to be >>> determined >>> after the MIP session set up, still there needs to be IKEv2 protocol >>> exchange for creating the SA ? Nothing stops either the HA or the MN to >>> create an SA for the tunnel mode ESP. >> >> I guess you are missing the point. An MN may create an IPsec SA for the >> data plane as well using IKEv2. But it is not required that traffic >> actually flow via this SA. MIP6 does not have a policy or mechanism as to >> when security for the data plane is applied. This I-D is addressing the >> issue by providing a means by which security for traffic can be switched >> on. An MN may create an Ipsec SA at the time of registration for the data >> plane as well but it is not required that traffic be secured with that SA. >> but it is not required that traffic be secured with that SA. an SA for data traffic wouldn' t be created if the SPD doesn' t require data traffic to be protected by an SA... > I understood the principle of moving this nego (enable/disable to MIP > control plane. But, I did not understand the last line. If there is SA for > tunnel mode ESP, can the HA not drop the traffic not protected with the > negotiated IPsec SA ? As above, the SA wouldn' t be created if SPD doesn' t required data traffic protection. If SPD requires data traffic protection, an SA will be created. --julien From charles.perkins@earthlink.net Tue Jul 26 08:07:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C07CD21F8BEB for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:07:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JW4llraL8f1z for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F3621F8BD3 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:07:47 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=Id7hGoO9mgCG0HVa3tZ0VJ2vKzreay4r7kj/onKb7w8902189lmA58E5mbdqVA1S; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [130.129.22.65] by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QljEY-0000la-Lx for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:07:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4E2ED841.50604@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:07:45 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad8636bc405535202eaab4cf483eff3e068b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 130.129.22.65 Subject: [MEXT] [mext] discussion group Wednesday morning 9:00-11:30am, room 303AB X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:07:47 -0000 Hello folks, Basavaraj Patil and I have arranged a room to discuss topics of interest for MEXT, with emphasis on DMM. The meeting will take place Wednesday in room 303AB from 9:00-11:30am,. Here is a tentative agenda: 1. Discussion of DMM I-Ds and topic (60 mins) 2. Enhancements to (DS)MIP6 to meet deployment and 4G+ architecture needs (60 mins) 3. Anything else that people have in mind. Regards, Charlie P. From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Tue Jul 26 08:33:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9006911E8112 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:33:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QdcrjEBLM1I2 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:33:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f53.google.com (mail-pz0-f53.google.com [209.85.210.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A1011E810B for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:33:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6so956975pzk.26 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:33:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=xqe99QzPwuvOag7rj/KcvJ2wBmwJLlTPEsdp5EHMJPM=; b=hLvnY5odH6lTBUKWzH3mYYCirvkCvqpnM13WvhFqa1VgT1dMhl1tQU4xk6sWRadVBE XuyVkhNi7bxDDBWANWHS6f65aCMMP5wJClLiubp5A4+9QqgdgT+IfJW7fgF7hUienJzv LpLeJzhMNVPd0HqaUlu1NN7sd7s6T18gtVRfs= Received: by 10.68.0.101 with SMTP id 5mr9353770pbd.99.1311694435041; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:33:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-54f6.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-54f6.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.84.246]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m7sm668867pbk.54.2011.07.26.08.33.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:33:54 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: jouni korhonen In-Reply-To: <4E2ED841.50604@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:33:51 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4E2ED841.50604@earthlink.net> To: Charles E. Perkins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: mext Subject: Re: [MEXT] [mext] discussion group Wednesday morning 9:00-11:30am, room 303AB X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:33:57 -0000 Charlie, Thanks for arranging this. Unfortunately the slot overlaps with meetings = like CoRE and Softwire.. - Jouni On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote: >=20 > Hello folks, >=20 > Basavaraj Patil and I have arranged a room to discuss > topics of interest for MEXT, with emphasis on DMM. >=20 > The meeting will take place Wednesday in room 303AB > from 9:00-11:30am,. Here is a tentative agenda: >=20 > 1. Discussion of DMM I-Ds and topic (60 mins) > 2. Enhancements to (DS)MIP6 to meet deployment and > 4G+ architecture needs (60 mins) > 3. Anything else that people have in mind. >=20 > Regards, > Charlie P. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From subir@research.telcordia.com Tue Jul 26 08:44:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B70C11E811C for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:44:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GV3BJamh4uVp for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flower.research.telcordia.com (flower.research.telcordia.com [128.96.41.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B91D611E8113 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.96.58.39] (vpntnlA39.research.telcordia.com [128.96.58.39]) by flower.research.telcordia.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p6QFiFc0004991 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:44:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E2EE0D2.9090902@research.telcordia.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:44:18 -0400 From: Subir Das User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext@ietf.org References: <4E2ED841.50604@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [MEXT] [mext] discussion group Wednesday morning 9:00-11:30am, room 303AB X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:44:23 -0000 Jouni, I also mentioned Charlie about CoRE overlap and I need to be there. -Subir On 7/26/2011 11:33 AM, jouni korhonen wrote: > Charlie, > > Thanks for arranging this. Unfortunately the slot overlaps with meetings like CoRE and Softwire.. > > - Jouni > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote: > >> Hello folks, >> >> Basavaraj Patil and I have arranged a room to discuss >> topics of interest for MEXT, with emphasis on DMM. >> >> The meeting will take place Wednesday in room 303AB >> from 9:00-11:30am,. Here is a tentative agenda: >> >> 1. Discussion of DMM I-Ds and topic (60 mins) >> 2. Enhancements to (DS)MIP6 to meet deployment and >> 4G+ architecture needs (60 mins) >> 3. Anything else that people have in mind. >> >> Regards, >> Charlie P. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From rkuntz@us.toyota-itc.com Tue Jul 26 16:15:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3137021F8922 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:15:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_ABOUTYOU=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EXv45JeJtGue for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog103.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog103.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6BE7A21F88DD for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f52.google.com ([209.85.210.52]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob103.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTi9KoUDR5tOu3bMRj0Vs5D+ftxyMgYIX@postini.com; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:15:46 PDT Received: by mail-pz0-f52.google.com with SMTP id 13so1622287pzd.11 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.66.66 with SMTP id d2mr400878pbt.223.1311722145357; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.18.145] (adsl-99-49-9-53.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net [99.49.9.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q2sm1023660pbj.35.2011.07.26.16.15.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Romain KUNTZ In-Reply-To: <1311438985.9673.YahooMailRC@web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:15:42 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <5ABC57DC-9BF5-4626-B51F-DD50222BA5CB@us.toyota-itc.com> <1311438985.9673.YahooMailRC@web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> To: Behcet Sarikaya X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] Some questions on draft-sarikaya-mext-multicastdmm X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:15:47 -0000 Hello Behcet,=20 Comments inline: On Jul 23, 2011, at 9:36, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >> I'm currently updating draft-kuntz-dmm-summary and was considering = including=20 >> draft-sarikaya-mext-multicastdmm. However I have a few questions = about your=20 >> draft. >>=20 >> To me it seems that your proposal is not a DMM solution by itself = but is built=20 >> upon draft-kassi-mobileip-dmi. Am I right? Is the exact motivation = of your=20 >> proposal to support multicast on the mobile node when DMI is used? >>=20 >=20 > My draft is intended to be a candidate for Mext WG charter item on dmm = and it is=20 > inline with the discussions we had in the last Mext session on dmm, I = don't=20 > remember where, was it Beijing, IETF 79? > . > If you are saying that cellular network application is emphasized, = yes, I think=20 > that cellular networks are of course the place where we should look = for=20 > deployment possibilities. I'm not sure what made you think I was talking about cellular network = application? That was not my intent.=20 I was stating that if we remove the multicast part, the underlying DMM = solution exposed in your draft seems to be very similar to DMI = (draft-kassi-mobileip-dmi) and was wondering if there were any = differences that I failed to see. > I think multicast support is important and so far no other draft talks = about=20 > multicast. That's why multicast is covered in my draft. Ok. >> About the solution itself: >>=20 >> * Section 3:=20 >>=20 >> "MN starts to receive the packets over HA-MN link from >> CN and MN starts to send packets with a destination option = containing >> the previous Care-of Address as MN's Home Address (HoA) to the = CN." >>=20 >> I'm not sure why you are doing this? This sounds like route = optimization to =20 >> me. >>=20 >=20 > Why not? This is the behaviour MN should have because HA keeps = changing, right? In section 5 you are stating "This protocol removes the need for route = optimization. Correspondent nodes do not need to maintain a binding = cache of bindings for other nodes.", so this does not sound coherent = with the MN behavior exposed above.=20 >> * Section 6:=20 >>=20 >> "Multicast state for the mobile node is usually established when >> mobile node was on the link and the state in Multicast State = mobility >> option normally must match this state and the multicast state sent = by >> the mobile node becomes the multicast state of the mobile node = when >> communicating over MN-HA tunnel." >=20 > OK, let me clarify this in the next version. Thanks, romain=