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

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Thu, 15 December 2011 08:47 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 A9CEA21F8510 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:47:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Bzw6YV+J+LUg for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:47:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A05421F850E for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:47:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by laah2 with SMTP id h2so911416laa.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:47:56 -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=kvG5zB7KxFknOoMS5ZntEGGDRjTSvzXf8Np+r2CM0Mo=; b=Vp1di1U+FRPMmXuCTVazpUlJjKBQfRgKMKGt/pQSq9R4TzsTDhAHddw83ek6ZSDGPp 8ujZlw3CD9YXUBnZTlZEn8K2bgM56AhJjbPiNRCBshzHEj5mzodrd6m+csRJdrBot9pj 8XX+WuKkDBa0VKGi106svfvUPyr1fyud7zd/4=
Received: by 10.152.105.226 with SMTP id gp2mr1687323lab.28.1323938876355; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a88-112-207-66.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-112-207-66.elisa-laajakaista.fi. [88.112.207.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id op2sm4771068lab.6.2011.12.15.00.47.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:47:54 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcca3N9V1bHbK14Kggzn+1Ehaq6b=8KSbY94bWmYyDcsSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:47:54 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6AAF04FB-D322-4323-8891-436CD2B34923@gmail.com>
References: <8CAD2158-A0AC-4767-9DDC-857536E26DC6@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcca3N9V1bHbK14Kggzn+1Ehaq6b=8KSbY94bWmYyDcsSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "julien.ietf@gmail.com Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:47:58 -0000

Behcet,


Reading Multimob's current charter and the planned continuum thru possible
rechartering:

   Future work, subject to rechartering, may study/evaluate extensions
   to IGMPv3/MLDv2 to support better operation in mobile environments.

I would be inclined to say that anything DMM related was not planned for
Multimob and DMM goes beyond the original scope of 'providing guidance
for supporting multicast in a mobile environment'. I would not add any
restricting text regarding multicast into DMM charter.

However, I leave this to our ADs to judge whether multicast enhancement
*shall not* be done within DMM after our requirement and analysis work
conclude that multicast enhancements are needed. Assuming we (DMM) would
conclude enhancements are needed for multicast around IETF#85, it would
be a bit odd if another WG is already chartered to work in a solution
space in the exactly same area.

- Jouni


On Dec 14, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

> Hi Jouni, Julien,
> 
> Should we say that multicast is out of scope?
> 
> Multicast dmm  could possibly be covered in Multimob.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:54 AM, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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