Hi Alex, all, My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it’s fine to work on MIP6 improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I totally agree. And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and the related suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard track. It has been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly right to do it.
So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the work, if not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF. Regards, Thierry. > Le 8 janv. 2016 à 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petre...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > > Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a écrit : >> >> Behcet, >> >> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 >> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their >> prime time as “hot research topics". Looking at the existing charter >> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we can >> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. > > Jouni I can agree with you in general. > > But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations very > important in some places including where I work. > > They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly protocol and > implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the corrections > have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. > > Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations thrive where > WG cares little. > > <provocative> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged and does > not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed > publicly?</provocative>. > > Alex > >> >> - Jouni >> >> >>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jouni, all, >>> >>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no >>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find >>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>> >>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 as >>> well? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Behcet >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano >>> <c...@it.uc3m.es> wrote: >>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>> >>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>> >>>> Carlos >>>> >>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>> >>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough >>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the >>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out >>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>> >>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions of >>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>> >>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing >>>>> list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list >>>> dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list >> dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
