[DMM] draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-00 - update plans

Marco Liebsch <Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu> Fri, 19 June 2015 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C7211A011E for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.712
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.712 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gj9GGloAkUcA for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54E3B1A0117 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4FE10A0A2 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:44:45 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dCnavEp47Bpc for <dmm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:44:45 +0200 (CEST)
X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted
X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted
Received: from METHONE.office.hd (methone.office.hd [192.168.24.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AC7710A0A1 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:44:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PALLENE.office.hd ([169.254.1.4]) by METHONE.office.hd ([192.168.24.54]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:36:21 +0200
From: Marco Liebsch <Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu>
To: "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-00 - update plans
Thread-Index: AdCqlHXxklWEzLGaQkiXxrLVjUwt7g==
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:36:21 +0000
Message-ID: <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D99B10FDA@PALLENE.office.hd>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.1.6.1]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D99B10FDAPALLENEofficehd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/e4bnwwryMVHYa05uyPe1hxOECC0>
Subject: [DMM] draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-00 - update plans
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:44:50 -0000

Folks,

draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-00  is out since May. So far we did not receive any serious issue to address, which is good.
Driving the draft towards a more mature state, I see the following main items to address:



(1)    Completion of properties and attributes

(2)    Adoption of a standard conform modelling

In terms of (1), the importance to include QoS attributes has been raised from different sides.
I'll make a proposal how to cover this in an update on the DMM ML using a separate eMail.
Other attributes we may need to cover are about monitoring/reporting.

In terms of (2) we heard different opinions about keeping this document at the level of information models
or be more specific by adopting data modeling. So far the document is pretty hybrid ;-), core part is more about
clear definition and description of messages and information to apply between Client and Agent. In the appendix
the draft includes a (so far experimental) YANG model.

Please state your opinion here to see what the WG expects from the document. If we adopt information modeling,
this seems straightforward from a version which is complete in terms of messages/attributes.
If we adopt data modeling, we may need to spend more cycles in agreeing formats, alignment, etc.

Hope we can discuss on the ML. I'd also like to schedule a WebExt before the draft deadline. Will send a
doodle around for that.

marco