Re: [Mip4] Status update & Recharter effort

["Jayshree Bharatia" <[e-mail]>]

 See my response inline...

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
McCann Peter-A001034
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:37 PM
To: Bharatia, Jayshree (RICH1:2H10)
Cc: [e-mail]; Henrik Levkowetz
Subject: Re: [Mip4] Status update & Recharter effort

Hi, Jayshree,

Thanks for your input.

The issue was raised during AD review that we might not want more than
one protocol for configuring options on the host.  Given that DHCP can
be made to work over a Mobile IP tunnel, it might be the preferred
option.
[JB] I have always said that and also indicated in the draft from the
very beginning that DHCP is one of the option. The proposal we have in
this draft is an alternate solution. So again, I have failed to
understand reasoning behind not adopting gen-ext draft. In fact, gen-ext
was indicated as more preferred solution in WiMAX NWG at one point. We
couldn't accept the proposal in that group because of the status of this
draft in IETF.

I know that we've had the gen-ext draft as a working group document for
some time and there was consensus to advance it from within the working
group.  However, based on the feedback we got as part of a wider review,
it might be necessary to revisit the question of which approach to take.
[JB] I am surprise to see you quote as "wider review". When was that
done? 

-Pete

Jayshree Bharatia wrote:
> Pete,
> 
> Regarding your following proposal:
> 
> draft-deng-mip4-host-configuration-00.txt
> draft-chakrabarti-mip4-mcbc-03.txt
>   These two items are related, because DHCP uses IP-layer broadcast
>   to deliver DHCPREQUEST messages.  I'd like to propose that we drop
>   the gen-ext draft and add these two.  Comments?
> 
> 
> Per my understanding, gen-ext and
> draft-deng-mip4-host-configuration-00.txt are related. Gen-ext draft 
> has been there for a while and there are implementations deployed 
> based on the solution proposed by this draft. It is a working group 
> draft went through multiple WG last calls in this group. I don't see 
> technical argument from you which invalidates acceptance of this
> draft.     
> 
> I strongly oppose your suggestion on dropping gen-ext draft.
> 
> Regards,
> Jayshree
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
> Of McCann Peter-A001034
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:05 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Henrik Levkowetz
> Subject: [Mip4] Status update & Recharter effort
> 
> Hi, all,
> 
> Traffic on the list has been light lately so I wanted to provide a 
> status update on our existing work items and kick-start a discussion 
> on where to take the working group next.
> 
> Here is a list of our current work items and status:
> 
> 
> draft-ietf-mip4-generic-notification-message-07.txt
>   New version was uploaded on 11/3, in response to comments
>   from WGLC.  On cursory examination, it appears to me that
>   most if not all comments have been addressed.  It would be
>   nice to get confirmation of this from those who had comments
>   back in July/August.  Then we can submit for publication.
> 
> draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-02.txt
>   We will issue a last call on this soon, but it has lower
>   priority than 2006bis.
> 
> draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa-03.txt
>   No interest in continuing.  We will drop this item from our charter.
> 
> draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis-07.txt
>   Still working on the shepherd writeup.  Will be submitted for
>   publication soon.
> 
> draft-ietf-mip4-udptunnel-mib-01.txt
>   On hold waiting on 2006bis; then we will issue WGLC.
> 
> draft-ietf-mip4-rfc2006bis-05.txt
>   Ready for last call.  Will issue soon.
> 
> draft-ietf-mip4-dsmipv4-10.txt
>   In RFC Editor's queue.
> 
> draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-04.txt
>   Ongoing discussion on whether to continue this item (see recharter
>   discussion below).
> 
> 
> Several new work items have come to our attention over the past few 
> meeting cycles.  Here is a partial list of potential work items for
> mip4 going forward.  Please comment on which you would like to see
> and which you think should be excluded.   
> 
> 
> draft-deng-mip4-host-configuration-00.txt
> draft-chakrabarti-mip4-mcbc-03.txt
>   These two items are related, because DHCP uses IP-layer broadcast
>   to deliver DHCPREQUEST messages.  I'd like to propose that we drop
>   the gen-ext draft and add these two.  Comments?
> 
> draft-gundavelli-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support-00.txt
>   We've had some good discussion already on the mailing list and this
>   seems like a potentially useful extension.  Comments?
> 
> draft-doswald-robert-mip4-btn-fmipv4-00.txt
>   This was presented at IETF-72.  Is there interest in working on it?
>   Other comments?
> 
> draft-makela-mip4-nemo-haaro-03.txt
>   This was presented at IETF-70 and it looks like there have been a
>   couple of revisions since.  Is there interest in working on it? 
> Other comments? 
> 
> draft-acee-mip4-bulk-revocation-01.txt
>   This was presented at IETF-70.  Is there interest in working on it?
> Other
>   comments?
> 
> draft-yegani-gre-key-extension-03.txt
>   This was presented at IETF-70.  Is there interest in working on it?
> Other
>   comments?
> 
> 
> 
> If I left anything out please speak up.
> 
> -Pete

--
Mip4 mailing list: [e-mail]
    Web interface: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/