Re: [netlmm] WG Review: Recharter of Network-based Localized Mobility Management (netlmm)

Hello Jari,

You make a very clear case.  I think this work item
should be on the working group charter.  It is good
that you would otherwise sponsor it.  I expect that
the discussion of the specification would anyway
transpire on the [netlmm] mailing list.

Regards,
Charlie P.

Jari Arkko wrote:
> (Replies to netlmm WG list and me, please)
>
> This working group's new charter is under consideration by the IESG. 
> The new charter has been approved except for one issue. During the 
> comment period we received a request from Julien Laganier to add a 
> work item to the charter, a heartbeat functionality. Please see below 
> for the details.
>
> This work item was discussed in the working group as well, but like 
> many other proposals, was not adopted to the final charter that got 
> sent to the IESG. (This was not so much a question of lack of support, 
> but lack of clear choice from the WG to choose a small number of items 
> to work on in addition to the ones already in the new charter. I had 
> asked the WG to not work on everything at the same time...)
>
> What's changed now then? Julien writes that this functionality has 
> been adopted for the new LTE network design by 3GPP, is going to be 
> added to the official dependency list, and I know it will be 
> implemented by several parties. Is this a sufficient reason to add 
> this as an official work item to the WG?
>
> Note: I have already agreed to AD sponsor this document if it does not 
> end up in the charter. However, there are design decisions that would 
> be better run in the WG, in my opinion. So I would prefer to put this 
> work item to the new charter.
>
> Does anyone object to this addition? Please comment before Friday 25th 
> July, 8AM GMT.
>
> Jari
>
> Julien Laganier wrote:
>> IESG:
>>
>> The 3GPP WG CT4 has added during last meeting in June (CT4#39bis) a 
>> dependency for a "PMIPv6 path management and failure detection" 
>> feature such as the one defined in 
>> draft-devarapalli-netlmm-pmipv6-heartbeat to its 3GPP TS 29.275 
>> v1.0.0 "PMIPv6 based Mobility and Tunneling protocols" for which I'm 
>> acting as a rapporteur, see:
>>
>> <http://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0807&L=3gpp_tsg_ct_wg4&T=0&P=3346> 
>>
>>
>> This feature is crucial to align of PMIPv6-based 3GPP interfaces to 
>> the GTP-based interfaces by relying on IETF-developed extensions, 
>> rather than 3GPP Vendor Specific extensions, which would benefit 
>> neither IETF nor 3GPP, IMHO.
>>
>> I'd thus like to request that an additional deliverable be added to 
>> the the charter, and I'm proposing below some strawman text:
>>
>> 8) PMIPv6 path management and failure detection: This will define an 
>> extension to the PMIPv6 protocol allowing PMIPv6 peers to verify 
>> bidirectional reachability with their peer, detect failure of their 
>> peer, and signal their own failure to their peer.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --julien
>>   
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> netlmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
>
>

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