Subject: [multimob] WG adoption call on PMIPv6 multicast handover optimization draft

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:46:05 -0500

Folks,

This mails starts a one-week adoption call on
PMIPv6 multicast handover optimization draft at

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-contreras-multimob-rams-04

There was good support at the meeting last week.

Please send your comments on supporting or not
to the list.

Regards,

Chairs

---

From: "Rahman, Akbar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 11:40:30 -0400

Hi Behcet,

I agree with the proposal to adopt this I-D as a WG draft.  I think that
the document is in good shape and that there was good WG support as you
mentioned during the Paris IETF meeting.

Akbar

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 12:46 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [multimob] WG adoption call on PMIPv6 multicast
handoveroptimization draft

Folks,

Regards,

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

---

From: Sérgio Figueiredo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:19:00 +0100

Hi Behcet,

I support the adoption of this I-D as a MULTIMOB WG draft.

Best regards,

Sérgio Figueiredo

-- 
----------------------------------------------
Sérgio Figueiredo
----------------------------------------------
Advanced Telecommunications and Networks Group
IT-Aveiro
----------------------------------------------

---

From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:22:41 +0200

Hi,

I haven't found the time to review the document in detail - but in 
general I support adopting the draft.

Best regards,

Thomas

-- 

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 °

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:10:04 +0900 (JST)

Hi,

> Please send your comments on supporting or not

I'm Ok this draft becomes the WG draft.
But the following points should be considered in the revised version.

In section 3.1.1.1, it says;

  "This option does not include specific information about the
   applicable filter mode defined in [9]. After the handover process,
   the MN has to receive the same multicast flow being received before
   the handover initiation (in terms of the (S,G) duple), then the
   filter mode information is not strictly critical to accelerate the
   reception of the multicast flow at the new point of attachment. This
   information can be, however, retrieved later through the response
   message to the MLD Query sent by the nMAG once the point-to-point
   link of the entering MN is set-up, as defined in [4]."

I don't think this paragraph is true.
Operations regarding MLD filter more (include or exclude) are
completely opposite; include (S,G) join is the request to obtain the
(S,G) session, but exclude (S,G) join is the request NOT to obtain the
(S,G) session (i.e. request to obtain (*,G) but not (S,G)).
If you want to ignore the exclude filter mode operation (e.g. because
of its complexity), I think it is Ok. But this draft must explicitly
say so and provide the procedure how you ignore the exclude filter
mode operations.

The option format defined in section 3.1.1.2 should be conformed with
RFC3810. A multicast record must include filter more if you support
both include and exclude filter mode operations.
And the multicast record must be able to specify multiple source
addresses for one group record as specified in RFC3810.
I also recommend to note that null source address must be allowed.

And at last, although I said previously, I recommend to change the
name of "RAMS" to the different one, as RAMS is already well known as
Unicast-Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions (RFC6285)
and some of AVT drafts have been using this abbreviation.

Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda

---

From: Seil Jeon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:30:38 +0100

We need to check it in details but I agree this approach (e.g. not
MAG-to-MAG but MAG-to-LMA based context transfer) should be made for rapid
multicast subscription in mobile environment.

So, I support the WG adoption of this draft.

Seil

2012/4/4 Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:34:57 +0200

Dear all,
I also confirm my support for the draft as WG document on HO optimization. I think we should in parallel (and perhaps as Appendix?) also demonstrate the optimized performance of both the proactive version and the reactive versus the base solution - which of course is also a function of assumed RTTs on radio part (MN-MAG) and between MAG-LMA.
I would offer to propose some text for this ... Together with at least Luis and Carlos ;-)

Best regards
Dirk

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von Behcet Sarikaya
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 18:46
An: [email-masked]
Betreff: [multimob] WG adoption call on PMIPv6 multicast handover optimization draft

Folks,

Regards,

Chairs

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:04:26 -0500

Hi all,

This call has ended with very strong support.

Authors, please submit your draft as

draft-multimob-fast-handover

after revising according to the comments posted.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:46:11 -0500

> draft-multimob-fast-handover

draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover

PS. Thanks Bill Atwood for pointing out this typo.

---

From: "MELIA, TELEMACO (TELEMACO)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:34:04 +0200

We support the adoption of this ID as WG document

telemaco

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: 04 April 2012 18:46
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [multimob] WG adoption call on PMIPv6 multicast handover optimization draft

Folks,

Regards,

Chairs