[DMM] Draft meeting minutes
Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Thu, 15 November 2012 14:17 UTC
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDF321F84E6 for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:17:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fz5-wlEW6HJy for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:17:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ea0-f172.google.com (mail-ea0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF8421F85FA for <dmm@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:17:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k13so762178eaa.31 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:17:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=XZHYTCJiNEeEKqxOTZYC5GMiSRsIdrHiVVK6Y9S5UUM=; b=q5VekWS6bRK/VnzViXxtZ5Edq3Vqt6MTWcEFQmgFNUymBrHdWGNInlB25qd5ZxqMnm bQ1c4+XcXY1joOvHTQbWKvKg5Mu/ALVkwogZDZjxbIF7ROhrfi24wIiZCw5jCwCol/PU DU6rDid40w2Gz8nYtM3yrQhtRyniD+2SQiknmjVoUE6oKc0xrmLHRBa/uVcpXsJSoLpz 9PYz/aP7S2PnxOLHnH6mH/wW1qvxWuMsHJDGrqCogIElRf7FHtdZhtMpGigS7bfPfesf gUSiZB7rMVG9OAAgO6mb82xTeej6pn4Y/QngkLvxq1sW8amX9wGDKYInls7babug1utm whCA==
Received: by 10.14.209.136 with SMTP id s8mr4101265eeo.33.1352989037270; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:17:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [188.117.15.110] ([188.117.15.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d44sm36433465eeo.10.2012.11.15.06.16.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:16:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:16:48 +0200
Message-Id: <C3A38531-AE1D-40C2-A0AA-EF0FFC130C4B@gmail.com>
To: dmm@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Cc: Julien Laganier <jlaganier@juniper.net>
Subject: [DMM] Draft meeting minutes
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:17:20 -0000
Folks, Check the draft minutes. And thanks to Peer and Carlos for excellent & detailed minutes. These are combined from those both. - Jouni ----------------- DMM WG meeting started at 9:00 am Thursday November 08, 2012. WG chair Jouni Korhonen (JK) and Julien Laganier (JL) chaired the meeting. Minute takers: Peer Azmat Shah and Carlos Bernandos ** Agenda and WG update Jouni discussed the milestones of the DMM WG. He told that in Jan 2013 we have to submit I-D “Solution requirements” to IESG for consideration as informational RFC. Also, in March 2013 we have to submit I-D ‘Gap Analysis” to IESG for consideration as an informational RFC. In March 2012, we also have to evaluate the need for further work based on the identified Gap Analysis and have to revise the milestones and/or charter of the group. Keorgios Karagiannis (GK): there is no framework draft in the milestones list. Would this be included in the gap analysis document? JK: this is a grey area, the gap analysis should be based on operational experience. Brian Haberman (BH): this has to do with how you design the protocol. Once the current milestones are complete, this can be analyzed as part of the rechartering process. Marco Liebsch (ML): it is useful to have design goals, I'm not proposing to have a design goals document, but the content should be anchored somewhere, maybe in the requirements document. JK: this is why we have a requirements document. At the end of the meeting we will ask which of the four documents would be the baseline for the current practices and gap analysis milestone. It does not make sense to keep the four documents evolving. Konstantinos Pentikousis (KP): the gap analysis is kind-of an analytical work. The current practices is different. It is better to have two different documents. They can be combined for the publication phase at the end, but they are two different jobs. JK: I have a problem of doing a gap analysis based on something you do not have. KP: you do it based on the specifications and the requirements. The gap analysis should have to do with operational aspects and also with what is missing from current specs. Specs might not specify something, but leave the freedom to do it in a different way. But if something is missing on the current specs, this should also be considered. ** draft-ietf-dmm-requirements Anthony Chan (AC) discussed the DMM requirements. A suggestion was given by an audience that unicast and multicast requirements should be done in advance and we have to keep every thing together and multicast should not be left for later on. Luo Wen (LW): Question on Req5, roaming and handover scenarios are different. You have a PMIP domain and deploy a DMM domain. Since it is difficult to explain here, I'll send an e-mail. AC: I don't understand the question. JL: Please, send suggested text you think is missing to the list. Peer Azmat (PA): do you need information from lower layers? JK: this is not considered in this group. GK: you had something on multicast, are you going to discuss it now? JK: I did not attend the MULTIMOB session but BH has something to comment. BH: DMM is in the position to now take into consideration multicast. Lets do everything together in DMM. CP: multicast and mobility have been around for a long time and even many people say it is impossible to solve the multicast mobility problem. It is important to understand the requirements of multicast. This could delay the work on unicast DMM. GK: maybe we should have a requirement that states that the DMM solution should have some hooks to multicast, solution specified in such a way that can be extended to support multicast. Behcet Sarikaya (BS): with MULTIMOB co-chair hat on. The requirements should be done in DMM WG and the solution should be developed in the MULTIMOB WG. AC: are you in a position to propose concrete text? Seil Jeon (SJ): we have some text. JK: please suggest text to the mailing list. BH: the requirements should be here in the same single document. People that attended to MULTIMOB WG, please propose text for the DMM requirements document. BS: the current document that has been presented in MULTIMOB WG on DMM is not about requirements, it is about use cases. Karen Seil (KS): I'd like to see requirements in terms of performance from an application point of view. If you are going to do multicast, do it since the beginning, because it has security implications. JK: you do not need to wait for next meeting to say something, please send comments to the mailing list within this month. Juan-Carlos Zuniga (JCZ): It is good to bring multicast here. I also agree with CP that we should avoid bringing a too strong multicast requirement that jeopardizes or delays the rest of the work. Suggestion is to add a requirement on the "SHOULD" terms. KP: people should submit requirements for multicast. The other thing we can do is say that whatever solution MULTIMOB does, DMM should support it. I prefer the "outsourcing" solution, leaving the work to the MULTIMOB WG. Dapeng Liu (DL): the text on the requirements draft comes mainly from the charter and there is no multicast in the charter. If our intention is to do a solution for multicast and unicast, this is going to be hard. If people have strong requirement for multicast it is valid to add it here. ** draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis Next presentation was DMM Gap Analysis by Juan Carlos. He told that the difference of this draft from version 1 is that Charlie joined as an author. Comments received from the people on the mailing list have been addressed, source address selection mechanism is added and also multihoming in IPv6 is included in this draft. Juan Carlos discussed that different existing mobility protocols follow the DMM requirements or not. Then he discussed the next steps to address latest comments received on 2nd version of draft. DL: the title is gap analysis, does it cover also current practices? JCZ: yes, two clear sections in the document, one covering the current practices, while the other performs the gap analysis. DL: in my understanding, your document compares existing IP mobility protocols with requirements. We already have done that during the WG formation process. We do not need this at all, as we have already convinced people. JCZ: what we did in the document is to take a DMM eye on current IP mobility protocols and go forward on how specs could operate in DMM way, so we think we have done what the charter expects. Yuri Ismailov (YI): we should analyze functions of each of the protocols, and who operates them and how they can collaborate to achieve DMM. Ahmad Muhanna (AM): this is part of the protocol definition itself. JK: Yuri, please bring this to the mailing list. GK: you are missing a framework. Use the requirements, project them on the framework and then analyze how the solutions meet the requirement. It is also useful to include more solutions. The use case on cloud infrastructure should also be included. ML: I sent some comments to the list. This draft is valuable, follows a bottom-up approach. I also agree with previous comment, we have protocol components and we should compare them with DMM functions. We need bottom-up and also top-down approaches. JL: related comment. In terms of how current practices are described there. There is one widely deployed mobile network, which is the 3GPP one. This should be added to the analysis (a new column). We need to compare with something that is out there, otherwise the analysis might end up being academic. ** draft-liu-dmm-of-deployment The presentation was about the deployment of existing mobility protocols in DMM scenarios. Dapeng Liu discussed that what the best current practice of DMM is? He added that before deploying existing protocols, first look whether it is feasible or not as DMM charter says. He added that motivation of this practice draft is that, there are many proposed solutions for DMM. A lot of discussions were made from the audience on the GTP and MobileIP. Julien was of the opinion that we should take help from the requirements and gap analysis of GTP to be used in the gap analysis for DMM, but all others was of the opposite opinion. JL: have you said that there is no deployment of mobility specifications? GTP, PMIPv6 and MIPv4 are deployed. Do not focus only on MIP, consider also GPRS, because it is deployed. JK: we have deployments of PMIPv6, DSMIP did not make it. We have concrete examples of solutions deployed. CP: saying that GTP is exaclty like PMIP is like saying a bike is like a bus. Alex Petrescu (AP): comment on the previos academic aspect. It is hard to do a gap analysis on GTP, because at the IETF we do not have the GTP spec. Regarding the use of MIP, and talking from the perspective of vehicular communications, we do see deployment in this field, with very strong deployment plans. JL: it was not my intention to say we work on GTP and not on MIP. Just use GTP as another input. KP: we could also describe what happens on analog communications, but we do not have any way of affect or influence them. We may have an appendix describing GTP, but we should focus on what we can influence. KS: Interoperability issues would matter. You might want to identify these, as that would be helpful. CP: a lot of discussion is going around 3GPP. I wonder if the intention is to do solutions compatible with 3GPP. ** draft-chan-dmm-framework-gap-analysis Next, Anthony Chan presented the unified view through reconfiguration of existing functions. He identified 3 basic Internet functions and mobility functions. He said that we can redistribute the MIP and PMIP functions into DMM functions. Tricci: It is complex to read the draft. If you can simplify it, that would be helpful. ** draft-liebsch-dmm-framework-analysis Marco Liebsch presented a set of functional entities that enable DMM use cases and IP address continuity. First he discussed the existing MobileIP and DMM entities, then he discussed the DD design constraints. He added that these design constraints have impact on the DMM solutions. He proposed that we should move to a general DMM functionality that can be applied to existing mobility protocols, rather than making a complete new DMM solution. It was commented that he does not agree on the statement of the presenter that it is not a new gap analysis. He said that presenter has proposed a new framework and gap analysis and at this point he is late, as majority of the things have been finalized in the gap analysis of the DMM WG. KP: I do not agree this is not a framework gap analysis. I think it comes it a bit late. Draft is on a very early stage. Overlaps 85% with previous drafts. ML: the draft is meant to convey the message, hope to be adopted by other draft. JCZ: when we were doing the analysis we missed some sort-of framework. I do see your draft as complementary. I think it would add value and be complementary. GK: this is useful, not only for doing the analysis, but also to help people specify solutions. AM: thanks Marco. Really nice work. I agree with Kostas. ML: I disagree it overlaps 85% with other drafts. ** draft-seite-dmm-dma Pierrick Seite discussed the basic practices of DMM deployment. The usecase for DMM is to distribute the functionality as much as possible closer to MN. He discussed two different approaches: node centric and network centric. Many questions were asked from the audience and Jouni, WG Chair, told that these basic discussions should be made on the mailing list rather than to be discussed in the meeting. Alper Yegin (AY): when do you turn down the tunnel between the ARs (net based solution)? how do you know when to do it? PS: based on prefix lifetime. AY: might be long, communications might go longer than prefix lifetime. I do not think this is the best option. Tricci: when you move to a new AR, how do you get the same address? Pierrick Seite (PS): this is just PMIPv6. Tricci: PMIPv6 does not specify that right now. How does the MN keeps the same address? JL: you keep using the old address, session continuity exists as long as you keep the address anchored at the previous router. JL: you could use anycast to find the previous anchor. Carlos J. Bernardos (CJB): I think we are going too much in solution space. Obtaining used addressed by the MN is not a major issue. You can use for example a centralized LMA for control plane, or anycast as mentioned by JL. Tricci: not an issue, just needs clarification. ** draft-korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties Sri Gundavelli presented DMM prefix properties. Followed by a presentation of SP-WiFi Service for Retail model. Sri Gundavelli (SG): asks the chairs to move this draft forward. YI: is it in scope adopting this in this group? JL: lets proceed with the presentation and then we discuss about that. YI: this option has to be provisioned, who does that? How an application decides which address to use? SG: that decision is performed based on the policy table, we are just populating the table, we are not telling the host what to do. That is defined in RFC 3484. JL: in addition to policy table there is also an API that allows the application to prefer home vs care-of address. One question I have: you have local breakout, for some traffic you want to have it centraly anchored. Do you expect to have most of the traffic locally broken out? why do not you use source address selection policies provisioned with DHCP? CP: (missed comment) SG: not familiar with these solutions, I have to take a look at it. Pascal Thubert (PT): the scope is not clear. If you want to have local communications, you can use the addressing architecture, for example, using ULAs to use a local printer. SG: the host should be aware that the local address has no mobility properties, and has to deprecate when moving. Any application with mobility requirements should use a mobility-enabled address. BH: I'm looking a draft that contains a security bit and a mobility bit. Am I looking at the right draft? JK: yes. BH: so you are doing more than mobility capabilities. What was the rationale of associating this with the PIO and not with the RA itself? Are the capabilities associated with the prefix or with the link? SG: with the PIO. BH: we have mobility, we have security, which other things you want to advertise? it has an impact on where this draft should be discussed. SG: if we set up a registry, then new drafts can come and register other uses for capabilities associated with prefixes. AP: is this only for PMIPv6? when you talk source address selection, this address is only obtained from a prefix in PMIPv6. In DHCP it is not. SG: also with SLAAC. AP: if we do source address selection, it sounds strange to put this capability on the prefix. If we were doing prefix address selection, then it would. When you put a single capability on a prefix, you force all the addresses for that address to share the same capability. SG: if you want properties at address level, then you cannot put it on prefix level. AY: you might want to look at RFCXXXX (missed the number). YI: your proposal seemed to be about address selection, but your presentation is about RA options. SG: maybe title was not good. YI: if you are talking about address selection, I don't think this work belongs to this WG. ** draft-gundavelli-v6ops-community-wifi-svcs SG presents the slides. JCZ: quick comment. In the IEEE 802 there is this OMNIRAN group discussing very similar issues. Over there, discusssion is more 802 wide. I just wanted to make the group to be aware, there might be some coordination required. ** draft-sarikaya-dmm-cloud-mm Bechet Sarikaya presented mobility management protocols for cloud like architectures. He discussed the MIPv6 for cloud and told that there are two HA planes, HA control plan for data and HA control for Handover. Handover HA control plane resides in the cloud. He also discussed PMIPv6 for cloud and concluded that PMIPv6 requires fewer changes for DMM as compared to MPIv6 in cloud. Sarikaya told that if you want to contribute to this draft then please comment on the mailing list. GK: as I have already mentioned on the mailing list, many mobility functions can be implemented in the cloud. Many EU projects and companies are looking at this. This should be considered as a use case in DMM. ** wrap up Jouni concluded the meeting with a discussion on the current practices and gap analysis and told that we are going to discuss the current practices and gap analysis on the mailing list so that we can have an IETF document before the next IETF meeting. Final discussion was that whether we should merge the two drafts, gap analysis and current practices, or select one before the next meeting. JK: contribute text for multicast to the requirements. Do not wait until March, do it next week, this month. JK: the other thing is the gap analysis. We have a couple of potential candidates for a baseline for write up as WG document. We are going to initiate this discussion on the mailing list, and we are going to pick up one, so we have a document before next IETF. Tricci: question. If two drafts merge into one, is this not allowed? JL: we are going to ask people what they want to do. Authors of these drafts, please talk during this week. AP: is it up to the authors to organize however they want? BH: if the authors want to merge, great, but the WG cannot force them to do it. KP: I would prefer that we address the comments and we have a more constructive approach. Main point is not to loose information in the process. We will take it offline. JK: this will be initiated shortly after the meeting.