[grobj] BoF in coming IETF 78

Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@huawei.com> Mon, 17 May 2010 07:16 UTC

Return-Path: <shengjiang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: grobj@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grobj@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123323A691C for <grobj@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 00:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.225, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 JZzxhW2FyBWD for <grobj@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 00:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD103A68B0 for <grobj@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2010 00:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L2J002G5YTE0Q@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for grobj@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2010 15:15:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L2J00JQMYTEIK@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for grobj@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2010 15:15:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from j66104a ([10.111.12.115]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L2J00J8SYTEJ7@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for grobj@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2010 15:15:14 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:15:13 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@huawei.com>
To: grobj@ietf.org
Message-id: <008001caf590$b19db940$730c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: Acr1kLE+B5k92llxRD2s0yuP8Icq4w==
Subject: [grobj] BoF in coming IETF 78
X-BeenThere: grobj@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss Generic Referral Objects <grobj.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grobj>, <mailto:grobj-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grobj>
List-Post: <mailto:grobj@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grobj-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grobj>, <mailto:grobj-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 07:16:08 -0000

Hi everybody,

We are now intenting to hold a BoF in the coming IETF 78, Maastricht,
Netherlands.

At IETF 76 Hiroshima, we had a BOF on Generic Referral Objects, hosted by
the Applications area. See http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/76/grobj.html.
This BOF showed considerable interest sin the topic but no coherence of
opinion, so it seems that more systematic work is needed on the problem
statement and requirements. Also, it seemed that most of the interest and
knowledge is actually in the Transport area (for the same reasons that
BEHAVE is in the Transport area). 

So, after IETF 76, a problem statement and requirements draft is produced
(http://bgp.potaroo.net/ietf/html/ids/draft-carpenter-grobj-reqts-00.txt).

However, up to now, it is pretty clear that we need a very precise problem
statement to act as the basis. We are working on an individual PS draft,
targeting to submit end of May. Comments on the problem statement aspect of
draft-carpenter-grobj-reqts-00 would become the input for this individual PS
draft. We are going to discuss the referral issues in the mail list to.

The targeting refer WG is first chartered to analyse this problem in detail
and to establish consensus on the requirements for a generic solution.

Best regards,

Sheng

Description of Referral Scenario:

A frequently occurring situation is that one entity A connected to
the Internet (or to some private network using the Internet protocol
suite) needs to inform another entity B how to reach either A itself
or some third-party entity C. This is known as a referral. Originally
this could be achieved simply by passing the relevant IP address
from A to B, but today this is not possible in the general case,
due to existence of disjoint addressing realms caused by NAT or
by IPv4-IPv6 coexistence. In some cases, this problem may be readily
solved by passing a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) instead of an
IP address. Indeed, that is an architecturally preferred solution
according to RFC 1958. However, it is not sufficient in many cases of
dynamic referrals, for a variety of reasons.