Re: [grobj] BoF in coming IETF 78

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 17 May 2010 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 B0FEA3A6CD9 for <grobj@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 05:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001]
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 MrySJSkLgoIQ for <grobj@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 05:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07F0828C14F for <grobj@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2010 05:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwi17 with SMTP id 17so336wwi.31 for <grobj@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2010 05:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Y/0wzcKTEi1HJZhjuOrh15VW4uISNPwQiVnoPyOs1uU=; b=anEc52mHZu6csqB7edDZwcApgrSbER1vhdZUdGYpV1GvyCereVn+s5dqpXRKP51EXW bayas00PpdaYMbsrXIAF1K2nqXI2ba5QKLJrMA9caQ0F7U6TCfk8VQFISaDpaQSJV0p8 oZzi7JkYwsRAl1O+eVlPrqQYzoVSwW8jrpQsY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=erwv9qnZz7U9K1Kix2YBNrNfvuMykQ8sCm/kNjG2rbQGFx++au2VNOY2pIyWIa75Pe 7KDUiHHg2dFeKaj3xHrcxe+sGt5sMHFM402MHmZBLar/eA6C7nAi4Ve2L1Ll9ywz8Wvl MG7tlHO8wfZbENLswNXQHIOTPJ9ZWlh8ALZ5M=
Received: by 10.216.178.133 with SMTP id f5mr934320wem.81.1274098519677; Mon, 17 May 2010 05:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (5ac18c62.bb.sky.com [90.193.140.98]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k13sm1685934wed.23.2010.05.17.05.15.17 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 17 May 2010 05:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BF13350.6050103@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 00:15:12 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@huawei.com>
References: <008001caf590$b19db940$730c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <008001caf590$b19db940$730c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: grobj@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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 12:27:06 -0000

Thanks Sheng. For everyone's information, I am taking a few weeks
unpaid leave so will not be as active on this list as I would have
wished.

We had some discussion back in January about different views of the
requirements, which was left unresolved. See January 28 in the archive:
 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grobj/current/maillist.html
To fix that, it seems very important to get some real precision in the
problem statement.

Med, you sent some comments on draft-carpenter-grobj-reqts-00,
maybe you can repeat for the list the high-level comments that affect
the problem statement aspect?

Regards
   Brian Carpenter




On 2010-05-17 19:15, Sheng Jiang wrote:

> 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. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> grobj mailing list
> grobj@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grobj
>