Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Mon, 02 January 2012 10:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38EB21F8D5A for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 02:44:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gqoUOS7m2mGc for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 02:44:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7CC21F8D54 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 02:44:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by werb14 with SMTP id b14so8711141wer.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 02:44:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=tx/wZpVkUt/kbrVG36hbCBrlpKNIQ/cnLHpY6LC91Vs=; b=NkpGO07uUwoOLSw4Ob2Sd5ckClqsXIZHsJr+3BRqrJYKDokM9QQLKBsrje9bHwkv6e rDtFSp31zH3OKWUiebSqJbI4JMT1QHTWGHsCSSWKTnwjqXAxERR7NdB8jRlVvWIfqG+s eRZu1QaWCAxgQ6K2BP6MprMo8uj+o/DpddAi4=
Received: by 10.216.139.156 with SMTP id c28mr32172160wej.34.1325501091804; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 02:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.255.134.110] ([192.100.123.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q5sm1304085wbo.8.2012.01.02.02.44.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 Jan 2012 02:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKcc6Aeqj24Smyvv5VQV5Emtaj-16C=5bpqjyv=-Lt3Haj2B+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 12:44:47 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <91BED5F7-FEE9-435E-80F3-5BF01421EB3B@gmail.com>
References: <8CAD2158-A0AC-4767-9DDC-857536E26DC6@gmail.com> <CAKcc6Aeqj24Smyvv5VQV5Emtaj-16C=5bpqjyv=-Lt3Haj2B+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "julien.ietf@gmail.com Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 10:44:55 -0000

Dapeng,

Below is the charter text that was submitted to the next IESG. Does it cover all your concerns?

- JOuni



Distributed Mobility Management (DMM)
-------------------------------------

Charter

Current Status: Active

Chairs:
    Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>;
    Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>;

Internet Area Directors:
    Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>;
    Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>;

Internet Area Advisor:
    Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>;

Mailing Lists:
    General Discussion: mext@ietf.org
    To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
    Archive:            http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext

Description of Working Group:

 The Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group specifies IP
 mobility, access network and routing solutions, which allow for
 setting up IP networks so that traffic is distributed in an
 optimal way and does not rely on centrally deployed anchors to manage
 IP mobility sessions. The distributed mobility management solutions
 aim for transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of
 active transport level sessions as mobile hosts or entire mobile
 networks change their point of attachment to the Internet.

 The protocol solutions should be based on existing IP mobility
 protocols, either host- or network-based, such as Mobile IPv6
 [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213, 5844] and NEMO [RFC3963].
 Solutions may also focus specifically on managing the use of care-of
 versus home addresses in an efficient manner for different types of
 communications.

 Although the maintenance of stable home address(es) and/or prefix(es)
 and upper level sessions is a desirable goal when mobile hosts/routers
 change their point of attachment to the Internet, it is not a strict
 requirement. Mobile hosts/routers should not assume that IP
 addressing including home address(es) and/or home network prefix(es)
 remain the same throughout the entire upper level session lifetime,
 or that support for mobility functions is provided on the network side
 in all conditions.

 The distributed mobility management solutions primarily target IPv6
 Deployment and should not be tailored specifically to support IPv4,
 in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs
 are used. At least IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile
 host/router and the access networks. Independent of the distributed
 mobility management solution, backward compatibility must be
 maintained. If the network or the mobile host/router do not support
 the distributed mobility management enabling protocol, nothing should
 break.

Work items related to the distributed mobility management include:

 o Solution Requirements: Define precisely the problem of distributed
   mobility management and identity the requirements for a distributed
   mobility management solution.

 o Best practices: Document best practices for the deployment of existing
   mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment.

 o Gap Analysis and extensions: identify the limitations in the best
   current practices with respect to providing the expected functionality.

 o If limitations are identified as part of the above deliverable,
   specify extensions to existing protocols that removes these
   limitations within a distributed mobility management environment.

Goals and Milestones:

 Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' as a working group
            document. To be Informational RFC.
 Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' as a working
            group document. To be Informational RFC.
 Nov 2012 - Evaluate the need for additional working group document(s)
            for extensions to fill the identified gaps.
 Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' to the IESG for
            consideration as an Informational RFC.
 Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Best practices ' to the IESG forvconsideration
            as an Informational RFC.
 Mar 2013 - Submit I-D 'Gap Analysis' to the IESG for consideration as
            an Informational RFC.
 Mar 2013 - Evaluate the need for further work based on the identified
            gaps and revise the milestones and/or the charter of the
            group.




On Dec 21, 2011, at 7:53 PM, liu dapeng wrote:

> 2011/12/14, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>;:
>> Folks,
>> 
>> We have been working on a charter text from DMM based on the initial goal
>> setting and the input we received during the Taipei meeting. Note that this
>> is the first draft and now we are soliciting for input.
>> 
>> - Jouni & Julien
>> 
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Distributed Mobility Management (DMM)
>> -------------------------------------
>> 
>> Charter
>> 
>> Current Status: Active
>> 
>> Chairs:
>>     Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>;
>>     Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>;
>> 
>> Internet Area Directors:
>>     Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>;
>>     Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>;
>> 
>> Internet Area Advisor:
>>     Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>;
>> 
>> Mailing Lists:
>>     General Discussion: mext@ietf.org
>>     To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>     Archive:            http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext
>> 
>> Description of Working Group:
>> 
>>  The Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group specifies IP
>>  mobility, access network and routing solutions, which allow for
>>  setting up IP networks so that traffic is distributed in an
>>  optimal way and does not rely on centrally deployed anchors to manage
>>  IP mobility sessions. The distributed mobility management solutions
>>  aim for transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of
>>  active transport level sessions as mobile hosts or entire mobile
>>  networks change their point of attachment to the Internet.
> 
> [Comment]
> 
> This point seems not specific to DMM, since all IP mobility protocol
> aim for transparency above IP layer. And the point (maintenance of
> active transport level sessions) contradicts with : “it is not a
> strict requirement to maintenance stable IP address” (later in the
> charter). Or does it mean that DMM aims to develop solutions that can
> maintain active transport level sessions without maintaining stable IP
> address?
> 
> 
>>  The protocol solutions should be enhancements to existing IP mobility
>>  protocols, either host- or network-based, such as Mobile IPv6
>>  [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213, 5844] and
>>  NEMO [RFC3963]. Alternatively, the distributed mobility management
>>  solution can be transparent to any underlying IP mobility protocol.
>>  Although the maintenance of stable home address(es) and/or prefix(es)
>>  and upper level sessions is a desirable goal when mobile hosts/routers
>>  change their point of attachment to the Internet, it is not a strict
>>  requirement.
> 
> [comment]
> please refer the previous comment.
> I think we should not exclude the solutions that can maintain stable IP address.
> 
> 
> 
> Mobile hosts/routers should not assume that IP
>>  addressing including home address(es) and/or home network prefix(es)
>>  remain the same throughout the entire upper level session lifetime.
>> 
>>  The distributed mobility management solutions primarily target IPv6
>>  Deployment and should not be tailored specifically to support IPv4,
>>  in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs
>>  are used.
> 
> [comment] Since DMM remains backward compatibility with existing IP
> mobility protocol. And DSMIPv6 can support IPv4, should we also need
> to keep IPv4 support in DMM?
> 
> 
> At least IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile
>>  host/router and the access networks. Independent of the distributed
>>  mobility management solution, backward compatibility must be
>>  maintained. If the network or the mobile host/router do not support
>>  the distributed mobility management enabling protocol, nothing should
>>  break.
>> 
>> Work items related to the distributed mobility management include:
>> 
>>  o Solution Requirements: Define precisely the problem of distributed
>>    mobility management and identity the requirements for a distributed
>>    mobility management solution.
>> 
>>  o Best practices and Gap Analysis: Document best practices for the
>>    deployment of existing mobility protocols in a distributed mobility
>>    management environment and identify the limitations of each such
>>    approach with respect to fulfillment of the solution requirements.
>> 
>>  o If limitations are identified as part of the above deliverable,
>>    specify extensions to existing protocols that removes these
>>    limitations within a distributed mobility management environment.
>> 
>> Goals and Milestones:
>> 
>>  Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' as a working
>>             group document. To be Informational RFC.
>>  Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' as a working
>>             group document. To be Informational RFC.
>>  Nov 2012 - Evaluate the need for additional working group document(s)
>>             for extensions to fill the identified gaps.
>>  Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' to the IESG for
>>             consideration as an Informational RFC.
>>  Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' to the IESG for
>>             consideration as an Informational RFC.
>>  Mar 2013 - Conclude the working group or re-charter.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ------
> Best Regards,
> Dapeng Liu