Re: Call for adoption confirmation: draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02

Hi Jong-Hyouk,

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jong-Hyouk Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I support the adoption of this draft as a WG draft even with the concerns
> pointed by Mingui. This draft has a merit of the introduction of the generic
> protocol extension allowing a multihomed MAG

No, the extension is for the RG, i.e. Residential Gateway which is a
broadband or fixed network element.


> to register more than one PCoA
> to the LMA. It is definitely useful for a multihomed environment.

Why would a MAG be multihomed? I am not aware of any proposals that
e..g  the serving gateway in 3GPP network where MAG is placed should
be multihomed.


Regards,
Behcet
>  Authors
> may update this draft to address Mingui’s comments if needed.
>
> J.
> --
> Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random
> Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University
>
> #email: [email protected]
> #webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon
>
> On Nov 26, 2015, at 5:00 PM, Mingui Zhang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I remember it was suggested to remove DSL, “Hybrid Access”, etc, and the
> suggestion was acknowledged. We haven’t seen an updated version yet. It is
> not ready to be adopted, I think.
>
> I have read the draft. I found the scope greatly shrinked from the 01 to 02.
> I guess the draft wants to fight through by providing a more generic
> protocol extension, while awaiting for real use cases. And, Hybrid Access
> could be treated as a potential use case (Actually, the DSL+LTE scenario is
> now intentionally inherited from the 00 version as a use case.).  If I guess
> right, I don’t think it’s a good starting point since it only covers a
> fragment of a possible solution. Besides the care of addresses, there are
> many other gaps that have not been touched: per-packet traffic
> classification and recombination, performance measurement, the bypass
> requirement, etc. From the draft, we cannot figure out a clear architectural
> overview. Section 3 doesn’t help much.
>
> Hence, I oppose its adoption.
>
> Thanks,
> Mingui
>
> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dapeng Liu
> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 12:22 AM
> To: dmm
> Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation:
> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
>
> Hello all,
>
> In IETF94, we initiated the call for adoption for the draft:
> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02
> Seems have got sufficient support during the meeting. We'd like to confirm
> the call for adoption in the mailing list for 2 weeks.
> Please send your opinion and comments to the list before December 9.
>
>
> Thanks,
> ------
> Best Regards,
> Dapeng&Jouni
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------
> Best Regards,
> Dapeng Liu
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>

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