Subject: [netext] Adopt I-D draft-korhonen-netext-rfc5149bis as Netext WG document?

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 20:04:12 +0000

Hello,

At the Netext WG meeting at IETF83, the I-D Service Selection for
Mobile IPv6 <draft-korhonen-netext-rfc5149bis-02.txt> was
discussed. We took a sense of the room to adopt the I-D as a working
group document and there was a strong consensus to do so.
Hence we are now asking the working group members over the mailing
list regarding the adoption of this I-D as a Netext working group document.
Please respond to the ML or the chairs if you are in favor of or
against adopting this I-D as a WG document by April 16th, 2012.

Question to WG members:
Should we adopt draft-korhonen-netext-rfc5149bis-02.txt as a Netext WG
document?

Yes  [ ]

No   [ ]

-Chairs

--------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

   In some Mobile IPv6 deployments, identifying the mobile node or the
   mobility service subscriber is not enough to distinguish between
   multiple services possibly provisioned to the said mobile node and
   its mobility service subscription.  A capability to specify different
   services in addition to the mobile node identity can be leveraged to
   provide flexibility for mobility service providers on provisioning
   multiple services to one mobility service subscription.  This
   document describes a Service Selection Mobility Option for both
   conventional Mobile IPv6 and Proxy Mobile IPv6 that is intended to
   assist home agents and local mobility agents to make a specific
   service selection for the mobility service subscription during the
   binding registration procedure.  This specification updates RFC5213
   and obsoletes RFC5149.

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:27:47 -0700

Yes. This update is needed.

One thing me must make sure -  This option is already specified in 3GPP
specs and there are implementations that use this option. We must ensure
backward compatibility; the bis-draft should not result in breaking existing
implementations, or significant spec updates.

Sri

On 4/2/12 1:04 PM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

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

---

From: jouni korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 10:17:49 +0300

Yes  [X]

One thing to point out. There are implementations and deployments
out there. Therefore ensuring we do not break backward compatibility
with those is of high importance.

- Jouni

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:34:11 +0000

Hello,

I believe that this I-D is beneficial to Proxy MIP6 deployments. I have
not seen any negative opinions on adopting this as a WG document.
Hence based on the consensus at the IETF83 WG meeting and the mailing list
responses (or lack of), I recommend accepting this as a Netext WG I-D.

Authors, please submit the I-D as WG doc.

-Chairs