Hi,

On 10.01.2014 00:11, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

Also you did not say which parts you implemented?


The implementation "mcproxy" was announced on the list on Dec. 18th, 2013. It covers those parts of the draft that are not deployable with commonly available 'standard' software like MLD-Proxies or PIM daemons:

"
The mcproxy complies to the IGMP/MLD proxy standard (RFC 4605) and supports the group membership protocols IGMPv3 and MLDv2 as well. In additional it meets the requirements of the multicast source and listener support in proxy mobile IPv6 (draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-06 and RFC 6224).

Key features:
 - supports IPv4 (IGMPv3)
 - supports IPv6 (MLDv2)
 - can be instantiated multiple times
 - dynamically configurable at runtime
 - can be configured to peer data between its instances
 - supports multiple upstreams
"

Cheers,

Thomas


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Sebastian Woelke
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    Hello,

    I reviewed pmipv6-source-06 for the WG last call, I implemented
    parts of it and weeks after the last call I think the draft is still
    in a good shape and ready for the next step.
    I also think the draft get a consistency problem if we remove this
    chapter.

    Kind Regards,
    Sebastian



    Am 09.01.2014 21:51 schrieb Behcet Sarikaya:

        Hi Thomas,

        On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt
        <[email protected]__hamburg.de
        <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

            Hi,

            I do not think that IETF procedures allow for WG chairs to
            garble drafts after they had successfully passed WG last call.


        This is not garbling the draft.

        Please refer to the shepherd document:

        http://www.ietf.org/iesg/__template/doc-writeup.html
        <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html> [6]


        In order to answer positively many questions like 2, Working Group
        Summary, or 4,

        We need to get WG's opinion.

        I personally am confused.

        Regards,

        Behcet


            Am I mistaken, Brian?

            Cheers,

            Thomas

            On 09.01.2014 21:12, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

                Hi all,

                Before shepherding this document to IESG we would like
                to get consensus
                opinion on one issue regarding this document that came
                up recently.
                Please refer to my conversation with Thomas on the list.

                ISSUE:
                Multimob WG has not worked on PIM at MAG for receiver
                mobility, we only
                worked on Proxy at MAG as per RFC 6224.
                However draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-__source-07 covers
                PIM at MAG for
                source mobility starting with Section 4.3.

                Question:

                Do you support covering PIM at MAG for source mobility,
                then say YES,

                if you do not support it then say NO.

                We need as many people as possible to express opinion on
                this issue. The
                deadline is one week from today, January 16, 2014.

                If WG consensus does not exist, we will ask the authors
                to remove PIM at
                MAG sections (subsections) and we will submit the
                revised document to IESG.

                Regards,

                Behcet

                _________________________________________________
                multimob mailing list
                [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
                https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/multimob
                <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob> [1]


            --

            Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
            ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences
            Berliner Tor 7 °
            ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099
            Hamburg, Germany °
            ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet [2]                   Fon:
            +49-40-42875-8452 <tel:%2B49-40-42875-8452> [3] °
            ° http://www.informatik.haw-__hamburg.de/~schmidt
            <http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt> [4]    Fax:
            +49-40-42875-8409 <tel:%2B49-40-42875-8409> [5] °




        Links:
        ------
        [1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/multimob
        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>
        [2] http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet
        [3] tel:%2B49-40-42875-8452
        [4] http://www.informatik.haw-__hamburg.de/~schmidt
        <http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt>
        [5] tel:%2B49-40-42875-8409
        [6] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/__template/doc-writeup.html
        <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html>


        _________________________________________________
        multimob mailing list
        [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/multimob
        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>

    _________________________________________________
    multimob mailing list
    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/multimob
    <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>




_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob


--

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

Reply via email to