Re: [DMM] WG Review: Distributed Mobility Management (dmm)

[Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thank you for the review. See my initial comments inline.

10/7/2014 8:50 AM, Abdussalam Baryun kirjoitti:
> Dear IESG,
>
> I received you message request for review, but there are some issues
> missing for my review. For example there is no milestones presented even
> though the submitted charter states below
>
>   "The working group may decide to extend the current milestones based on
> the new information and knowledge gained during working on other
> documents listed in the initial milestones. "

When we submitted the re-charter text we were given an advice to leave 
them out - for some reason. Anyway, these were the milestones at the 
time of finishing the text in the WG:

   Feb 2015 - Submit 'Enhanced mobility anchoring' as a working group
              document. To be Proposed Standard.

   Feb 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' as a
              working group document. To be Proposed Standard.

   May 2015 - Submit 'Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network
              nodes' as a working group document(s). To be Proposed
              Standard.

   Nov 2015 - Submit 'Enhanced mobility anchoring' submitted to the IESG.
              To be Proposed Standard.

   Nov 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' submitted
              to the IESG.  To be Proposed Standard.

   Feb 2016 - Submit 'Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network
              nodes' submitted to the IESG. To be Proposed Standard.

They are probably as of now, too aggressive time wise.

> Where are the initial milestone, the above statement refers to? did this
> WG decide on the milestones or not? When I review the WG production
> there is only one RFC and one adopted draft, while previous charters

WG has completed its work on the previous charter items. The last I-D is 
already past IETF LC and hopefully entering IESG telechat agenda any 
time soon.

> were aiming for more drafts. In first charter dated 2007 there were
> about three work items/drafts suggested without milestones which is ok
> because it is new but what happened? I want to know why we did not
> achieve that? an input from the AD can help.

See above.

- JOuni

>
> Creating/Rechartering WGs while not having clear milestones will cost
> IETF. I need to see in your review request of charter/recharter the
> following so that I can make better review:
>
> - if new WG, there can be no milestones decided, but need to have some
> individual drafts submitted for discussions and for future adoption plans.
> - if new WG, there should be in the charter related works/RFCs in IETF
> that this WG will consider.
> - if recharter WG, I need to know its evaluation of previous charter(s),
> and why recharter?
> - if recharter WG, I need to know clear milestones (dates of submissions
> and date of conclude) and clear/stated adopted drafts and non adopted
> drafts that are under consideration.
> - All WG charters MUST have a date of conclude/recharter, otherwise we
> may waste time/space/money in IETF.
> - I prefer if the IETF charter has sections that are must and sections
> that are optional, so that we agree on how we review such charter. I
> think milestones are must for recharters and optional for new WG charter.
> - I require for my best review for recharter, a review AD evaluation
> section for the WG's previous charter(s) and challenges.
>
> Please note we need to take care with the charter details,
> the WG-decisions and then recharter review. Therefore, I object this WG
> to recharter until its WG decides the milestones and have clear work
> adoption plan related to drafts mentioned in the charter.
>
> Regards,
>
> AB
>
> On Friday, October 3, 2014, The IESG wrote:
>
>     The Distributed Mobility Management (dmm) working group in the Internet
>     Area of the IETF is undergoing rechartering. The IESG has not made any
>     determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is
>     provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to
>     the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org <http://ietf.org>) by
>     2014-10-13.
>
>     Distributed Mobility Management (dmm)
>     ------------------------------------------------
>     Current Status: Active WG
>
>     Chairs:
>        Dapeng Liu <[e-mail] <javascript:;>>
>        Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail] <javascript:;>>
>
>     Assigned Area Director:
>        Brian Haberman <[e-mail] <javascript:;>>
>
>     Mailing list
>        Address: [e-mail] <javascript:;>
>        To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>        Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm
>
>     Charter:
>
>     Mobility management solutions lie at the center of the wireless Internet
>     and enable mobile devices to partake in IP networks anytime and
>     anywhere. The IETF Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group
>     (WG) specifies solutions for IP networks so that traffic between mobile
>     and correspondent nodes can take an optimal route. DMM solutions aim for
>     transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of active
>     transport level sessions when mobile hosts or mobile networks change
>     their point of attachment to the Internet.
>
>     Wireless network deployments have traditionally relied on hierarchical
>     schemes that often lead to centralized deployment models, where a small
>     number of mobility anchors manage both mobility and reachability for a
>     mobile node. The DMM WG will consider the latest developments in mobile
>     networking research and operational practice (i.e. flattening network
>     architectures, the impact of virtualization, new deployment needs as
>     wireless access technologies evolve in the coming years) and will
>     describe how distributed mobility management addresses the new needs in
>     this area better than previously standardized solutions.
>
>     A topic of particular focus will be mobility anchoring in this new
>     context, and the DMM working group is chartered to work on
>     maintenance-oriented extensions of the Mobile IPv6 protocol family (RFC
>     5213, RFC 5844, RFC 5555, RFC 5568, and RFC 6275) as well as new
>     approaches which capitalize on other protocols specified by the IETF.
>     For example, mobility management in a limited area, such as within an
>     autonomous system, is not strictly limited to mentioned IP mobility
>     protocols but can be any existing or a new protocol solution enabling
>     the movement of a mobile node such as routing protocols. When extending
>     protocols that are not based on Mobile IP, DMM solutions will have to be
>     reviewed by the corresponding WGs.
>
>     IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile host/router and the
>     access networks. DMM solutions are primarily targeted at IPv6
>     deployments and are not required to support IPv4, in particular for the
>     case where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs are used. DMM solutions
>     must maintain backward compatibility:  If the network or the mobile
>     host/router does not support the distributed mobility management
>     protocol that should not prevent the mobile host/router gaining basic
>     access (i.e., nomadic) to the network.
>
>     Contrary to earlier IP mobility protocols, mobility management signaling
>     paths and end-user traffic forwarding paths may differ. Further,
>     mobility-related functions may be located in separate network nodes. DMM
>     solutions should not distinguish between physical or virtualized
>     networking functions. Whenever applicable, clarifications and additional
>     features/capabilities for specific networking function deployment
>     models, e.g. in virtualized environments, are in-scope and encouraged.
>     Solutions may also specify the selection between the care-of addresses
>     and home address(es)/prefix(es) for different application use cases.
>
>     The working group will produce both informational architectural and
>     standards track protocol solutions on the following work item topics.
>
>            o Distributed mobility management deployment models and
>     scenarios:
>              describe the target high-level network architectures and
>              deployment models where distributed mobility management
>              protocol solutions would apply.
>
>            o Enhanced mobility anchoring: define protocol solutions for a
>              gateway and mobility anchor assignment and mid-session mobility
>              anchor switching that go beyond what has been specified, for
>              example, in RFC 6097, 6463, and 5142. Traffic steering
>              associated with the anchor switch is also in-scope if deemed
>              appropriate.
>
>            o Forwarding path and signaling management: the function
>              that handles mobility management signaling interacts with the
>              DMM network elements for managing the forwarding state
>              associated with a mobile node's IP traffic.  These two
>     functions
>              may or may not be collocated. Furthermore, the forwarding state
>              may also be distributed into multiple network elements instead
>              of a single network element (e.g., anchor).  Protocol
>     extensions
>              or new protocols will be specified to allow the above mentioned
>              forwarding path and signalling management.
>
>            o Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network nodes:
>              define solutions that allow, for example, mobile nodes to
>     select
>              either a care-of address or a home address depending on an
>              application' mobility needs. In order to enable this
>              functionality, the network-side control functions and other
>              networking nodes must also be able to exchange appropriate
>              control information, as well as to the mobile nodes and their
>              applications.
>
>     The working group may decide to extend the current milestones based on
>     the new information and knowledge gained during working on other
>     documents listed in the initial milestones. Possible new documents and
>     milestones must still fit into the overall DMM charter scope as outlined
>     above.
>
>     Milestones:
>
>