Re: [Int-area] [DMM] New draft posted: Anchorless mobility management through hICN (hICN-AMM): Deployment options

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Luca Muscariello <luca.muscariello
@gmail.com> wrote:

> As of now, we do not intend to standardise anything.
> The intended status for this draft is informational as indicated.
>
> The system described in the draft has actually been around for quite a
> while at the IRTF.
> It might appear of immense scope and novelty to you as you might not be
> aware about the
> work done at the IRTF on this topic.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxsemantics/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/icnrg/documents/
>
> ccnx draft are going to IRSG for final approval poll soon and is good
> starting point if you're interested.
>
> On the other hand hICN is an IPv6 forwarding pipeline that realises CCN
> semantics in IPv6
> and that is how it is indented to be  analysed in this scope.
>
> When I read the charter of this WG it seems it couldn't be a better fit.
> And BTW I have been invited by other list members to share this
> information about the topic
> in this list. So I did.
>
> The Internet Area Working Group (INTAREA WG) acts primarily as a forum for
> discussing far-ranging topics that affect the entire area. Such topics
> include, for instance, address space issues, basic IP layer functionality,
> and architectural questions. The group also serves as a forum to distribute
> information about ongoing activities in the area, create a shared
> understanding of the challenges and goals for the area, and to enable
> coordination. [...]
>

Luca,

No where in the int-area charter do I see that transport protocols are in
scope. Transport protocols are the domain of transport area. Architectural
questions, like whether intermediate devices should be participating in the
transport layer protocols or even parsing E2E transport protocols, or
whether it's acceptable to create new IP protocol that only works with
select transport protocols, might be reasonable questions to pose in
int-area I would think.

Tom


>
> Luca
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:38 PM Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Luca Muscariello <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO, there's no such a thing as a wrong question. But you can always
>>> ask another one.
>>> And BTW, I answered already to one of the questions you redo.  Yes,
>>> there will be another draft on transport.
>>> It is not ready but I can have a technical report right before the IETF
>>> week and I might give a presentation
>>> at the next ICNRG meeting. That is out of scope for this list I think.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is out of scope for this list. If the intent is to standardize a
>> new transport protocol then that obviously needs to be done in transport
>> area. Honestly, given the immense scope and novelty of what hICN is
>> attempting to do, I have to wonder if this work is better to be done in
>> IRTF.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>