From morsedd@acmebrick.com Sat Dec 6 22:44:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-mipshop-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-mipshop-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E683A6866 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:44:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BmY3+IYORpK2 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:44:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from customer-85-31-70-122.talia.net (customer-85-31-70-122.talia.net [85.31.70.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C0B883A67E1 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:44:37 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081207064438.C0B883A67E1@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:44:37 -0800 (PST)

From jose.algarin@idpgraficos.com Tue Dec 9 08:55:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-mipshop-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-mipshop-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490213A6916 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:55:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -18.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_DYNAMIC_DIALIN=3.384, HELO_EQ_DIP_DIALIN=1.573, HOST_EQ_DIP_TDIAL=2.144, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.097, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_FROM_DRUGS=1.666, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QuNZzTGFVKwH for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:55:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from p5B3239CA.dip.t-dialin.net (p5B3239CA.dip.t-dialin.net [91.50.57.202]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A21533A67B0 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:54:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20081209065446.3883.qmail@p5B3239CA.dip.t-dialin.net> To: Subject: RE: SALE 89% OFF From: VIAGRA INC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:54:59 -0800 (PST)

From mipshop-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 9 14:48:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mipshop-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-mipshop-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202493A6883; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:48:40 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: mipshop@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mipshop@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDB13A6883 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:48:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J0kXN67xixla for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:48:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound.mse15.exchange.ms (outbound.mse15.exchange.ms [216.52.164.185]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28EE33A687B for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:48:37 -0800 (PST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:48:29 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Request to progress MIPSHOP WG ID - draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options Thread-Index: AclaUDWugkUrsMyyQGKIgXm9nPVpcAAAAhzg From: "Vijay Devarapalli" To: Subject: [Mipshop] FW: Request to progress MIPSHOP WG ID - draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options X-BeenThere: mipshop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org FYI -----Original Message----- From: Vijay Devarapalli Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 2:48 PM To: 'iesg-secretary@ietf.org' Cc: Stefano Faccin; 'Jari Arkko' Subject: Request to progress MIPSHOP WG ID - draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options Hello, The MIPSHOP WG I-D, "DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Options for IEEE 802.21 MoS discovery" (draft-etf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options) has completed the WG last call. It is now ready to move forward in the process. The document shepherd write-up for the I-D is below. The status sought for this document is Proposed Standard. Vijay ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Vijay Devarapalli is the Document Shepherd for this document. I have reviewed the document and it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document has had adequate reviews from the members in the MIPSHOP WG. Reviews were also sought from the DHC directorate. Bernie Volz responded and reviewed the document. I have no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? None. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No specific concerns. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is WG consensus in advancing this document. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The document uses the boilerplate from RFC 3978 instead of RFC 4748. Expect this to get fixed in the next version. No other nits were found. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document splits the references into normative and informative references. There are two downward references, but both the corresponding documents are already with the IESG. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? The IANA considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document. The document requests reservations in the appropriate IANA registries. The IANA registries that need to be modified/created are clearly identified. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Does not apply. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. The document defines the necessary Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) options that contain a list of domain name or IP addresses that can be mapped to servers providing IEEE 802.21 type of Mobility Services [MSFD]. These Mobility Services are used to assist an MN in handover preparation (network discovery) and handover decision (network selection). The services addressed in this document are the Media Independent Handover Services defined in [IEEE802.21]. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? None. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? There are no known implementations or vendor plans to implement the specification. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are .' Document shepherd: Vijay Devarapalli Responsible AD: Jari Arkko/Mark Townsley _______________________________________________ Mipshop mailing list Mipshop@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop From mipshop-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 19 00:30:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mipshop-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-mipshop-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88CF03A69BB; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:30:04 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: mipshop@ietf.org Delivered-To: mipshop@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 8B0EB3A694C; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:30:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081219083001.8B0EB3A694C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:30:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: mipshop@ietf.org Subject: [Mipshop] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-01.txt X-BeenThere: mipshop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Mobility for IP: Performance, Signaling and Handoff Optimization Working Group of the IETF. Title : Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Author(s) : H. Yokota, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-01.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2008-12-19 This document specifies the usage of Fast Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) when Proxy Mobile IPv6 is used as the mobility management protocol. Necessary extensions are specified for FMIPv6 to support the scenario when the mobile node does not have IP mobility functionality and hence is not involved with either MIPv6 or FMIPv6 operations. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-12-19002428.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Mipshop mailing list Mipshop@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop --NextPart-- From mipshop-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 22 10:58:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mipshop-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-mipshop-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4558E3A68AD; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:58:08 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: mipshop@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mipshop@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033D73A68AD for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:58:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 81X7K2QA5vbT for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:58:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw-mx03.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD78E3A68A1 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:58:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id mBMIvmSR007854; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:57:54 +0200 Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:57:41 +0200 Received: from esebe111.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.154]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:57:41 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:57:08 +0200 Message-ID: <7A1F5E234FF3DC46A6E6D05D4F1FEE74994F03@esebe111.NOE.Nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <48FC0D5F.3070807@piuha.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery Thread-Index: AckybtafZ6fzZom1Sm2pHAn93tNaLwx9LSGw References: <48F8C1E8.8070402@piuha.net> <48FC0D5F.3070807@piuha.net> From: To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2008 18:57:41.0451 (UTC) FILETIME=[2A8491B0:01C96467] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: Re: [Mipshop] AD review of draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery X-BeenThere: mipshop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org Hi, The S-NAPTR spec is just a subset of NAPTR. I do not really see the added value of rewriting the draft to use S-NAPTR. Please see more inline: >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net] >Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 9:47 PM >To: draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery@tools.ietf.org; Mipshop; Bajko >Gabor (Nokia-CIC/MtView) >Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery > >A follow-up on the NAPTR issues. I had some misgivings about the way >NAPTR is used here, and after a very quick discussion with some DNS >experts, it seems that I have to ask this: > >1) Why aren't you using S-NAPTR (RFC 3958)? > >2) If you define a direct DDDS definition on top of NAPTR, you should >really do everything that is required in RFC 3401 Section 4, and I don't >think you are. I thought I did. I read through it once again, but I couldn't find anything missing. >3) I do not understand the way that the IANA registrations have been >made. Since several services may exist in the same domain, how do we >ensure that MIPSHOP services and some other services do not collide? >Note that with S-NAPTR this would have been easy. IANA would need to create a registry for 'MIH Service parameters', and include the proposed Service Fields to Transport Protocol mapping table in there. >I would recommend that the authors use RFC 3958 instead and change the >relevant parts of the specification to switch to that, including the >IANA registration. Is there a specific problem keeping it as it is? >But I have to confess that I am not at all a NAPTR expert myself. I >looked at the RFCs in question for the first time few days ago. If you >think what I am suggesting is wrong, please say so and we can talk about >it. If you don't think you can do the above change on your own, also ask >for help -- I can arrange experts that you could talk to about it. I do not tink yur suggestion is wrong, but I think the current text in the draft is a viable alternative to it. - Gabor >Jari _______________________________________________ Mipshop mailing list Mipshop@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop