Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes (was: FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting)

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 22/03/2011 17:45, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
> El 22/03/11 16:37, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>> Le 22/03/2011 15:52, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>> so, you ave downgraded you statement of several itemS being non
>>> MIP related and all the DMM discussion being non MIP related to
>>> just one single agenda item...
>>
>> You asked one, I told one.
>>
>> Another is the 3rd item (HAC is not a Mobile IPv6 entity, TLS is
>> not a MIP6 Type Code, etc.)
>>
>
> you mean the presentation of the draft entitled "Negotiation of
> security protocol for Mobile IPv6 operation" which in its 7 pages
> mentions the term Mobile IP over 24 times????, really?

Yes, I meant so, and here is why.

If I understand it correctly, HAC seems to be a new box with two
distinctive parts: one running a non-Mobile IP protocol (TLS tunnelled
Req/Resp, i.e. non Mobile IPv6) and another part which runs pure Mobile
IPv6 (BU/BAck).

Me too: my draft's MR has two distinctive parts: one running a
non-Mobile IP protocol (ICMPv6 extensions for prefixes, i.e. non Mobile
IPv6) and another part which runs pure Mobile IPv6 (BU/BAck with NEMOv6)
("MR" is all over the draft and its definition is that it runs Mobile
IPv6 with NEMOv6.)

(On another hand, e.g. draft-hampel-mext-ro-without-ha-00, another
agenda item, seems indeed to be modifications to the Mobile IPv6
protocol (new HoA Support Mobility Option in Mobility Header).  That
seems more appropriate to the MEXT agenda if MEXT is defined as being
Mobile IPv6-only work.)

That is why I think some items seem little appropriate to the agenda.

Or maybe MEXT is not only about modifications to Mobile IPv6 but it is
also something else, at which point more agenda items should be accepted
in all fairness.

>>> great, it seems we are making good progress here.
>>>
>>> about the particular item you mention: i understand this is the
>>> motivation for the dmm work and understanding the perceived
>>> probelms is needed to figure out how we can use MIP to deal with
>>>  the perceived problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, if people think this is out of scope for MEXT, i am fine
>>> to discuss whether we should keep it in the agenda or not
>>
>> I think it is worth discussing how much relationship do the
>> current agenda items have to the Mobile IPv6 protocol, and whether
>> that relationship is as much as other agenda requests.
>
> sure, that is what we are doing, but if your point is that
> draft-patil-mext-sec-negotiate-00.txt is as closely related to the
> MIPv6 protocol as IRON, then i am not sure we may be able to find a
> common ground for understanding each other....

I am trying to understand this.

I look at ironmike (IRON and MOBIKE) and it reads like using IKE for
supporting mobile nodes changing their addresses.  I think it could be
used together with Mobile IPv6: use MOBIKE mobility when in an IRON
domain or otherwise use Mobile IPv6 when handing over to the
non-IRON parts of Internet.

(I read "IRON tradespace" as I read "SDO")

I may not understand ironmike correctly, I just suppose.

IMHO.

Alex
[*] draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01
>
> Regards, marcelo
>
>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El 22/03/11 15:35, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>>>> Le 22/03/2011 15:06, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>>>> Please point exactly what item in the agenda is NOT about
>>>>> the Mobile IP protocol.
>>>>
>>>> The 6th.
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> El 20/03/11 15:13, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>>>>>> Marcelo, Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a doubt about the reasoning behind declining Fred's
>>>>>> request of agenda item.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current agenda
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> contains items IMHO only remotely or very vaguely related
>>>>>> to the Mobile IPv6 protocol per se. Additionally, agenda's
>>>>>>  DMM core item has a discussion which does not seem to
>>>>>> converge on the use of Mobile IPv6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this sense, I am not sure the typical statements of
>>>>>> MEXT doing _only_ Mobile IPv6 stuff holds any longer, as I
>>>>>> see it today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fred's "IRON and MOBIKE" draft-templin-ironmike-00.txt is
>>>>>> related to IKE which is related to Mobile IPv6 security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not trying to advertise Fred's draft particularly. I
>>>>>> am saying this because...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have the same agenda problem with similar work I do
>>>>>> (RA-based routing) for mobility, i.e. boxes which may run
>>>>>> Mobile IPv6 but need something else than Mobile IPv6 Type
>>>>>> Codes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is my doubt about MEXT activity and agenda planning,
>>>>>> thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 14/03/2011 19:56, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>>>>>> Hi Fred,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is
>>>>>>> limited to the the Mobile IPv6 protocol. Hence, we
>>>>>>> decline your request.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards, marcelo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribió:
>>>>>>>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach
>>>>>>>> to mobility management known as IRON:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The base IRON architecture document has now been
>>>>>>>> published as an experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing
>>>>>>>> Research Group:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are
>>>>>>>> documented in the following active Internet drafts:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present
>>>>>>>>  the approach. Please let me know if that works for
>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fred [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From:
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>>  On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun Sent: Wednesday,
>>>>>>>>>  March 09, 2011 8:32 AM To: mext Subject: [MEXT]
>>>>>>>>> Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to
>>>>>>>>> the chairs. please note that we are meeting on
>>>>>>>>> friday.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>>>>> mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>>> mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>> mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>>>  list [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>
> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>