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

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Mon, 09 January 2012 10:43 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 96F0E21F86EC for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 02:43:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 vG820OsSWE63 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 02:43:56 -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 C3C7F21F8675 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 02:43:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by laah2 with SMTP id h2so1529372laa.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:43:48 -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=HXKdl04hz+DaCjLAYAUMR/9BYvSp9ZO+JubnOLqZTMQ=; b=hdi4HuCWAscunBJwGLV1ueFUu1EFjo93XwzC/G6ZgNGHW0bFw16p/c4k2fkkxyAIv8 Phh6XcCkle62kYsLCFHyfKHcxYtBMLmBD2C60pUxBryUTw75PwCz32KZrlhsejEWd7J/ sY3cGwhzluNTOPGOFsPoFKMEvmF79oFK2o2P4=
Received: by 10.152.111.200 with SMTP id ik8mr6528019lab.43.1326105828831; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:43:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a88-112-207-191.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-112-207-191.elisa-laajakaista.fi. [88.112.207.191]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lo13sm5028028lab.8.2012.01.09.02.43.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:43:47 -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: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C7930232C@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:43:44 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <48813412-2A2D-4611-8723-BCE1A548BD59@gmail.com>
References: <8CAD2158-A0AC-4767-9DDC-857536E26DC6@gmail.com> <CAKcc6Aeqj24Smyvv5VQV5Emtaj-16C=5bpqjyv=-Lt3Haj2B+A@mail.gmail.com> <91BED5F7-FEE9-435E-80F3-5BF01421EB3B@gmail.com> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C7930232C@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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, 09 Jan 2012 10:43:56 -0000

Fred,

On Jan 3, 2012, at 7:42 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> 
>> 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].
> 
> I don't understand the "should be based on existing IP
> mobility protocols". IRON for example provides an
> alternative mobility management solution which I believe
> has significant advantages over other approaches:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironbis-10
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com


I admit I have not followed much of the IRON work. However, the 
overal idea is that if your solution needs specific bindings to
existing mobility providing protocol(s), then your choices more
or less are listed above (or some existing flavor/variation of
those). If your solution does not depend on any specific mobility
protocol i.e., does not require specification of protocol specific
bindings, then you are free to deploy it on top of anything,
including IRON.

- Jouni