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

luo.wen@zte.com.cn Wed, 14 December 2011 09:30 UTC

Return-Path: <luo.wen@zte.com.cn>
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 8DFC321F8B20 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:30:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -90.931
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-90.931 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 gVACLlINbi-T for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:30:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED28421F8B1F for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:30:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 566901783477680; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:13:41 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 43852.4405237714; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:29:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id pBE9Thhx060171; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:29:43 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from luo.wen@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <8CAD2158-A0AC-4767-9DDC-857536E26DC6@gmail.com>
To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 4079AAAC:D7E49201-48257966:00330B17; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF4079AAAC.D7E49201-ON48257966.00330B17-48257966.0034287F@zte.com.cn>
From: luo.wen@zte.com.cn
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:29:38 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-12-14 17:29:44, Serialize complete at 2011-12-14 17:29:44
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0034287948257966_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn pBE9Thhx060171
Cc: "julien.ietf@gmail.com Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, mext@ietf.org
Subject: [MEXT] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFRoZSBmaXJzdCBwcm9wb3NhbCBmb3IgdGhl?= =?gb2312?b?IERNTSBjaGFydGVy?=
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: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:30:29 -0000

Hi  jouni:

I have a quick question about  'Goals and Milestones'. 

As it is stated '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.' which 
means, I guess, a solution will be created for remove these limitations 
and a RFC will be needed.

So why the  'Goals and Milestones' misses this part? Or does it mean the 
solution for remove these limitaions is also included in the I-D 'Best 
practices and Gap Analysis' ?

Cheers
Luowen






jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> 
发件人:  mext-bounces@ietf.org
2011-12-14 16:54

收件人
mext@ietf.org
抄送
"julien.ietf@gmail.com Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>om>, jouni korhonen 
<jouni.nospam@gmail.com>om>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
主题
[MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter






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. 
 
  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. 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. 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