[MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Wed, 14 December 2011 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E0621F8678 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:54:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5DC5TiQqVQ7g for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:54:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B7721F8669 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:54:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eeke49 with SMTP id e49so504025eek.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:54:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=6Dqnt0Tg6Frs+AM0TjUFFKIpqH59ClF61ZYZ68g4bOM=; b=dCcRjSCw6qjCkoTvzXYw46/pzjOL2+273HLTAHM9uL/JX0P1BtI/PEYvqVJ/jGTM+q t33H7CGbY/00ieiUJRkooodK14rzhd+hroXI4yF+XMj9icYh4TQLfrrSqWl1Fi0q2kb5 ydh+f3f7qaV/ZJ+VHu51EzGayrS5lKp0E9iXI=
Received: by with SMTP id n15mr1055587eea.116.1323852881676; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:54:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (gprs-internet-ffc5ee00-110.dhcp.inet.fi. []) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s16sm7821936eef.2.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:54:41 -0800 (PST)
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:54:26 +0200
Message-Id: <8CAD2158-A0AC-4767-9DDC-857536E26DC6@gmail.com>
To: mext@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "julien.ietf@gmail.com Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: [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: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:54:48 -0000


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)


 Current Status: Active

     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
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.