Subject: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:19:25 +0000

Hello,

At IETF81 the chairs made a proposal to adopt as WG I-D: Proxy Mobile IPv6
Extensions to Support Flow Mobility
<draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03> As the starting point for
the specification defining flow mobility for Proxy Mobile IPv6.
We gauged support for and against adopting this I-D at the IETF81 WG
meeting with the following result:

In favor: 18
Opposed: None

As per process we are following up on the mailing list with the same
question. Please respond by Aug 18th, 2011 to the question below:

Q: Should we adopt as Netext WG I-D the document:
draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 which will be used as the
starting point in specifying the flow mobility feature for Proxy
Mobile IPv6?

Yes   [ ]
No    [ ]

-Chairs

IETF81 WG minutes are posted at:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/netext.txt

---

From: "Carl Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:27:02 -0400

Yes   [x]
No    [ ]

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:07:14 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Raj,
  You mean to say adopt after revision based on the comments posted on the list?

Regards,

Behcet

> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:02:06 +0200

Yes
Regards
Dirk

Betreff: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?

Hello,

In favor: 18
Opposed: None

Yes   [ ]
No    [ ]

-Chairs

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:42:43 +0200

Hi,

I'm in favor of this document but I've one question:

In the current version, the LMA makes decision to move flows and the MN
follows that decision to forward packets on the right interface.
However, during IETf80, we had good arguments in favour of the MN making
decision to move flows. 

So, the question is: do you plan, in this I-D, to consider also MN
initiated mobility management or shall we consider only network
initiated mobility  ?

Pierrick

> 
> Betreff: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D
draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-
> flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?
> 
> Hello,
>

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:05:47 +0900

Hi Raj,

This is also good work and has been long discussed. I think it's time to
progress.

(2011/08/11 6:19), [email-masked] wrote:
> Yes   [X]

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 05:46:42 +0200

Hi Pierrick,

I think that once the draft becomes WG document, as long as it fits in
the charter, it's up to the WG to decide if MN initiated mobility should
be also considered.

Thanks,

Carlos

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano  http://www.netcom.it.uc3m.es/
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67

---

From: Jinho Kim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:02:02 +0900

Q: Should we adopt as Netext WG I-D the document:
draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 which will be used as the starting
point in specifying the flow mobility feature for Proxy Mobile IPv6?

Yes   [O]
No    [ ]

Best regards,
Jinho Kim

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 6:19 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D
draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?

Hello,

In favor: 18
Opposed: None

Yes   [ ]
No    [ ]

-Chairs

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:03:03 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Carlos,

> the charter, it's up to the WG to decide if MN initiated mobility should

You mean by modifying MN?

It could be.

These days everything is possible :-).

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:26:17 +0000

The charter is quite explicit about not venturing into any extensions that
require MN changes.
Hence I would say that MN initiated flow mobility is OUT OF SCOPE for this
work item.

-Raj

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:55:22 -0700

Hello Raj,

While parts of this document are reasonable extensions to the PMIPv6
protocol, I have indicated repeatedly that I had a fundamental issue
with the other part of the document that lets the LMA unilaterally
decides to move flows.

To my recollection this issue was never properly addressed and thus I
am surprised to see that same draft again on the table for adoption.

I understand the desire of this group to make progress, but i do not
think it is fair to put for adoption as the baseline a version of the
draft that has a fundamental and unaddressed issue that is
controversial within the group.

As a result I' d like to request that the draft be revised to remove
that controversial feature before it is adopted. I believe this is the
best way forward to make long overdue progress. In the current state
of affairs I am accordingly answering to your question as below:

> No    [ X ]

--julien

---

From: Stefano Faccin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:09:03 +0000

Hello Raj,
I cannot help but support Julien's view. He is correct that some points were raised not once, not twice, but several times, and have still not been addressed. 

My answer to your question is 

Yes  [    ]
No    [ X ]

Cheers,
Stefano Faccin

Standards Manager
Research In Motion Corporation 
5000 Riverside Drive 
Building 6, Brazos East, Ste. 100
Irving, Texas 75039 USA 
Note: located in PST

Office: (972) 910 3451  
Internal: 820.63451
Mobile : (510) 230 8422
www.rim.com; www.blackberry.com 

 Consider the environment before printing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:13:12 +0000

Hi Julien,

>with the other part of the document that lets the LMA unilaterally

I don¹t believe there is this fundamental issue that (you mention) is a
show-stopper in the case of flow mobility for PMIP6. My recollection from
previous discussions is that the LMA makes the decision to move a flow
based on some policy which is either locally configured or obtains from an
external entity. You may disagree with that approach. We can discuss this
issue further and ensure that it is either fairly resolved through the
tracker.
My suggestion would be for you to write up this issue and upload it to the
tracker and we will resolve it to the satisfaction of the WG members.

>am surprised to see that same draft again on the table for adoption.

All issues and concerns related to flow mobility for PMIP6 will be
addressed. The document will not progress until every issue has been
resolved. But at the moment we are not making any progress at all. The I-D
that we are asking for adoption here will only serve as the starting point
for all debates and I hoping that we will make better progress in
resolving the issues and improving the I-D through the process of
capturing issues in the tracker and proposing solutions and text that is
satisfactory to all. Without a formal process, we will be discussing the
same set of issues over and over with no forward progress.

>controversial within the group.

IMO there is no fundamental issue with the proposal (but maybe I have not
understood your concern and the issue). Can you please write-up this issue
and we can discuss on the list?

>best way forward to make long overdue progress.

That is one option. Lets discuss what this controversial feature that you
refer to is and we can make a decision on whether to deprecate it before
WG adoption. If there are some earlier emails where this issue has been
already discussed, please do send me (and the list) a pointer.

-Raj

>In the current state

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:19:38 +0000

Hi Stefano,

As I replied to Julien, I realize that we have discussed several aspects
of the I-D multiple times. But I do not believe there are issues which
could be termed as "fundamental" to the protocol.
Hence my suggestion would be for folks to raise these issues through the
tracker in a formal manner to ensure that they are resolved to the
satisfaction of all. Please take the time to frame your concerns and
issues on the ML and through the issue tracker.

-Raj

On 8/12/11 1:09 PM, "ext Stefano Faccin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hello Raj,
>I cannot help but support Julien's view. He is correct that some points
>were raised not once, not twice, but several times, and have still not
>been addressed. 
>
>This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>information, privileged material (including material protected by the
>solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute
>non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than
>the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this
>transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete
>this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
>reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not
>authorized and may be unlawful.

---

From: Stefano Faccin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:29:05 +0000

Raj,
May I ask a question regarding the process? You claim the issues are not show stoppers. Let's assume we proceed and handle them in the data tracker to dissatisfaction of the people raising them. What then? How would you achieve progress then?

Stefano Faccin

Standards Manager

Office: (972) 910 3451  
Internal: 820.63451
Mobile : (510) 230 8422

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 11:20 AM
To: Stefano Faccin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?

Hi Stefano,

-Raj

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:36:57 +0000

Hi Stefano,

The chairs will monitor the discussion closely and any proposed solutions
to the issues that are raised. Unless we(chairs), the people raising the
issue, as well as the WG members, are not satisfied with the resolution we
will not progress the document.
The point about the process here is that at the moment we are spinning
wheels without making any forward progress. With a more formal approach to
the discussion and use of the tools, we hope to avoid discussions that are
in an unending loop. I do hope that folks who raise issues are also
willing to listen to solutions with an open mind.

-Raj

On 8/12/11 1:29 PM, "ext Stefano Faccin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Raj,
>May I ask a question regarding the process? You claim the issues are not
>show stoppers. Let's assume we proceed and handle them in the data
>tracker to dissatisfaction of the people raising them. What then? How
>would you achieve progress then?
>
>Stefano Faccin
>
>Standards Manager
>Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D

---

From: Stefano Faccin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:40:54 +0000

Raj,
Thanks for the clarification. Personally, I believe we are just postponing the discussion. If solutions had indeed been proposed, one would have had a chance to keep an open mind in considering it. For this reason, I have no choice but maintaining my indication as a "NO".
Cheers,

Stefano Faccin

Standards Manager

Office: (972) 910 3451  
Internal: 820.63451
Mobile : (510) 230 8422

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 11:37 AM
To: Stefano Faccin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?

Hi Stefano,

-Raj

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:45:04 +0000

Hi Stefano,

I realize that we have had discussions on these issues multiple times. But as you can see I cannot point to some text or emails on the list and say conclusively whether they have been resolved to everyones satisfaction or not. We will no doubt have the same discussion again. But I am hoping that with the use of the tracker and clearly capturing the issue and the proposed resolutions, we can at least make better decisions and eventually progress.

Please do write-up the issues and bring them to the list and/or issue tracker.

Thx.
-Raj

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Stefano Faccin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 1:41 PM
To: Patil Basavaraj (Nokia-CIC/Dallas)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?

Raj,

Stefano Faccin

Standards Manager

Office: (972) 910 3451  
Internal: 820.63451
Mobile : (510) 230 8422

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 11:37 AM
To: Stefano Faccin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?

Hi Stefano,

-Raj

---

From: Stefano Faccin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:56:59 +0000

Raj,
At this point I have no trust whatsoever that the issues that were raised will be considered at all. They have not been so far, so I expect the same will happen again. Even if in the tracker mechanism, I'd like to know what "to everybody satisfaction" means. It will once again be totally subjective, which then defies the whole process. I think too many people had to spend way too much time on this just to end up exactly where we were with no answers whatsoever (perhaps because there are none, if one existed I guess there would have been time to show it?). Again, I maintain a [NO]. Too bad we need to handle the discussion this way. 
Cheers,

Stefano Faccin

Standards Manager

Office: (972) 910 3451  
Internal: 820.63451
Mobile : (510) 230 8422

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 11:45 AM
To: Stefano Faccin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?

Hi Stefano,

Thx.
-Raj

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Stefano Faccin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 1:41 PM
To: Patil Basavaraj (Nokia-CIC/Dallas)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?

Raj,

Stefano Faccin

Standards Manager

Office: (972) 910 3451  
Internal: 820.63451
Mobile : (510) 230 8422

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 11:37 AM
To: Stefano Faccin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 as Netext WG doc?

Hi Stefano,

-Raj

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:03:47 -0700

Raj,

> tracker and we will resolve it to the satisfaction of the WG members.

Are you assessing the issue I described as not fundamental in your
function of  WG chair?

The "approach" of resolving the issue by making it someone else
problems does not address the fundamental issue that if one of the
MN's radio access isn' t working properly, having the LMA unilaterraly
direct a flow there will harm the MN ability to communicate without a
mean for the MN to recover.

So yes I disagree.

I have written the issue down on this mailing list many, many times, I
have discussed  it many, many times, and the issue was never addressed
adequately.

Your denial that this this fundamental also does not hint at how
further discussions can possibly resolve that issue. And keeping this
controversial feature in the draft ensure that the basis on which we
discuss is un-agreeable to a number of people in this group, and is
fundamentally broken. Not a very good starting point IMHO.

--julien

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:06:09 +0000

Hi Stefano,

I cannot change how you feel about the proposed process and proposal or
your "No" response.
What I mean by "to everybody's satisfaction" is that there is more than
rough consensus... That is what the IETF process calls for. I do not
believe that we will have unanimous consent on all issues. On this topic I
will moderate (as the sole chair) to ensure that the issues are dealt with
and proposed resolutions are satisfactory. It might not be sufficient to
satisfy everyone. But we will make an attempt. That’s all I can try to
make progress on this topic.

-Raj

On 8/12/11 1:56 PM, "ext Stefano Faccin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Raj,
>At this point I have no trust whatsoever that the issues that were raised
>will be considered at all. They have not been so far, so I expect the
>same will happen again. Even if in the tracker mechanism, I'd like to
>know what "to everybody satisfaction" means. It will once again be
>totally subjective, which then defies the whole process. I think too many
>people had to spend way too much time on this just to end up exactly
>where we were with no answers whatsoever (perhaps because there are none,
>if one existed I guess there would have been time to show it?). Again, I
>maintain a [NO]. Too bad we need to handle the discussion this way.
>Cheers,
>
>Stefano Faccin
>
>Standards Manager
>Subject: RE: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D
>I realize that we have had discussions on these issues multiple times.
>But as you can see I cannot point to some text or emails on the list and
>say conclusively whether they have been resolved to everyones
>satisfaction or not. We will no doubt have the same discussion again. But
>I am hoping that with the use of the tracker and clearly capturing the
>issue and the proposed resolutions, we can at least make better decisions
>and eventually progress.
>
>Subject: RE: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D
>Thanks for the clarification. Personally, I believe we are just
>postponing the discussion. If solutions had indeed been proposed, one
>would have had a chance to keep an open mind in considering it. For this
>reason, I have no choice but maintaining my indication as a "NO".
>Cheers,
>
>Stefano Faccin
>
>Standards Manager

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:21:09 +0000

Hi Julien,

>Are you assessing the issue I described as not fundamental in your

As WG member.

>mean for the MN to recover.

Thanks for refreshing my memory on this issue.
So yes, as you have mentioned before this is an issue. The LMA redirecting
a flow to an IF/MAG at which the MN may not be reachable (anymore) will
result in packets going into the void.

The consequence of such a scenario is pretty drastic in terms of user
experience and failure of communication.
An application may be able to recover if it has its own means. But that is
beyond the scope of the layer at which we are working on in this WG.
There has been mention of several possible solutions including a layer 2
based approach wherein the MN could indicate via its active IF that
another IF via which it was connected to MAGx and a flow was being
received has terminated. I know that solutions at L2 are out-of-scope and
such mechanisms have to be created in the relevant SDOs that specify
PHY/MACs. 
My point is that the I-D could highlight the issue and note the
consequence and severity of the problem which can serve as sufficient
warning to anyone who would consider deploying the protocol.
And that could be one way of dealing with the issue.
 
>have discussed  it many, many times, and the issue was never addressed

Agree. It has been discussed at length. Several solutions have also been
discussed but maybe none that you are convinced of.

>fundamentally broken. Not a very good starting point IMHO.

It is a fundamental issue... Given that the MN has no way to indicate if
another IF via which it was connected has gone down at L3. Lets see if
folks have a good solution that they can come up with.

-Raj

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:12:38 -0700

Hi Raj,

In your message below you agree that this is a fundamental issue of
which consequences are "pretty drastic in terms of user experience and
failure of communication". Working within the Internet layer, placing
an application in a situation in which it fails without being able to
recover constitutes a blatant lack of protocol correctness. Since you
also acknowledge that so far no good solution to this has been put
forth, it is only logic to not include the offending feature in the
draft to be adopted by the WG, so that we can build upon a correct
baseline.

I will be more than happy to see the draft extended with a mechanism
that provides the feature at stake when it is shown to exhibit
correctness at the Internet layer.

--julien

---

From: Mohana Jeyatharan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:13:37 +0000

Hi Raj, all,

I support the adoption of this draft.

Yes [x].

BR,
Mohana

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:19 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt I-D draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-
> Extensions to Support Flow Mobility <draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-
> flowmob-03> As the starting point for the specification defining flow mobility
> for Proxy Mobile IPv6.
> starting point in specifying the flow mobility feature for Proxy Mobile IPv6?
> 
> Yes   [ ]
> No    [ ]
> 
> 
> -Chairs
>