Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item

Hello Raj,

Not disagreeing that a BOF would be useful, but
I'm wondering whether the requirements as laid out
in the expired Internet Draft would fit in a single
working group.  The distinction between IP-based
and C2C-CC-based applications would probably need
a very contentious BOF, just on that single issue.
There have been so many failed proposals to replace
TCP, that it's hard to avoid skepticism for this one.

Anyway, I'd have more confidence that a BOF which was
restricted to just the mobility part of the problem
might get some useful results.

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 11/7/2011 12:06 PM, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote:
>
>
> On 11/7/11 9:52 AM, "ext karagian@cs.utwente.nl"<karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I agree with Alex and Thierry on this issue!
>> Where is the best place at the IETF to discuss and work out automotive
>> requirements?
>
> Maybe it would be worthwhile to organize a BoF and consider the potential
> for a separate WG since the automotive requirements are not just mobility
> related.
>
> -Raj
>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Georgios
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Thierry Ernst
>>> Sent: maandag 7 november 2011 14:17
>>> To: mext@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Alex for raising this.
>>>
>>> My view on this is that the automotive industry has some needs that are
>>> partly related to NEMO RO, but not only related to NEMO.
>>>
>>> So, I would like to seek advice from our AD about where would be the
>>> best
>>> place at the IETF to discuss automotive requirements related to IPv6 ?
>>>
>>> Regarding the dratf itself, it is our intention to update it.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Thierry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/11/11 14:06, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>> Hello Jari, WG members,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 28/10/2011 14:08, Jari Arkko a écrit :
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> We are making some changes to the working group. While we have
>>>>> successfully published a large number of specifications in recent
>>>>> years, recently it has been difficult to make progress in the group.
>>>>> The chairs and ADs have looked at the situation and we believe we
>>>>> need a new focus and a bit of new organization as well. We are
>>>>> terminating the working group and moving the one remaining active
>>>>> work item to a new working group, the "DMM" working group. Here's
>>>>> what is going to happen:
>>>>>
>>>>> o Jouni Korhonen and Julien Laganier will become the chairs of the
>>>>> group.
>>>>>
>>>>> o The group will meet in Taipei (there is a MEXT slot in the agenda).
>>>>>
>>>>> o The charter of the group will be changed to focus only on the
>>>>> distributed mobility effort. We should discuss the details of this
>>>>> charter change both on the list and in the meeting. The meeting
>>>>> agenda should reserve some time both for technical discussions as
>>>>> well as the charter discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> o Once the discussion on the list and in the meeting has finished, we
>>>>> will rename the group to "DMM" and put the new charter in effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> o If there are any other specifications that people would like to
>>>>> publish beyond the distributed mobility work, we can offer to AD
>>>>> sponsor them to RFCs outside the new working group.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder what is the plan about
>>>> draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req-02? "Automotive Industry
>>>> Requirements for NEMO Route Optimization"
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req-02
>>>>
>>>> I can see a number of options to move it forward, like for example:
>>>> - change in authorship, title.
>>>> - continue as part of new Charter (fulfill earlier objectives) or
>>>>    sponsor separately per your offer.
>>>> - change in focus.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>> If there is some significant new activity, we can create new working
>>>>> groups for that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments and feedback and/or alternate suggestions on this plan are
>>>>> welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> We would like to thank Marcelo for your many years of service in
>>>>> MEXT. We could not have completed all the work we did without your
>>>>> energy and push for high quality results. We would also like to thank
>>>>> Jouni for taking on this new challenge, and Julien for continuing the
>>>>> work in this space.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jari and Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>> mailing list
>>>>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> MEXT mailing list
>>>> MEXT@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>