Re: [nemo] NEMO RO on the charter

["James Kempf" <[e-mail]>]

Sounds fine.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "marcelo bagnulo braun" <[e-mail]>
To: "James Kempf" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Thierry Ernst" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: [nemo] NEMO RO on the charter


actually, i think that the idea is to have independent drafts first in
order to figure out how speific are the requirements for each case... i
think that they are already working in the case for aviation
requirements (there was a preliminary requirements list ported by Terry
in the ml)

If the result is that the different requirements for the different use
cases are somehow compatible then the idea would be to included them in
the general nemo requirement draft. If they are very specific, we may
well need separate drafts and even specific solutions for the different
use cases...

(at least this is what i understood from the previous discussion on the
ml so far...)

regards, marcelo


El 22/05/2006, a las 14:29, James Kempf escribió:

> I think it would be useful then to have a couple of concrete use cases. If 
> these are not in the problem statement and solution space analysis, then I 
> think it would be best to add them. It has  been a while since I took a 
> look at these drafts, perhaps someone can post the file names or URLs so 
> we can read them or are they already WG drafts?
>
>            jak
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "marcelo bagnulo braun" 
> <[e-mail]>
> To: "Thierry Ernst" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 2:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [nemo] NEMO RO on the charter
>
>
>
> El 22/05/2006, a las 11:29, Thierry Ernst escribió:
>
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> I would say that yes, the problem is well enough understood, there
>> exists solutions, and even implementations (e.g. based on SHISA). The
>> question is rather what RO we would like to do
>
> i agree with this
>
> in particular i think we have saw during this charter discussion that
> there are different use cases that may or may not have different
> requirements for the RO solution, so, work is needed to characterize
> this scenarios and decide which solutions fits better for those.
>
> so i agree that there are solutions that have been proposed that are
> well understood but more work is needed in the definition of the use
> cases. So i don't think this is reasearch and could perfectly be done
> here (however it may well  be the case that once we have characterized
> the use cases, none of the solutions we have provides the required
> features and we need to fall back to research mode to figure out a
> solution...)
>
> Regards, marcelo
>
>> (between MNNs in the same
>> nested NEMO, between MNNs located in separated NEMO, or between the  MNNs
>> and the infrastructure). I've also received personal comments that NEMO
>> RO is needed for deployment of RFC 3963 at a wide scale.
>>
>> The wording of the new charter should be more explicit on RO -
>> Unfortunately I was not watching the mailing list during the  March-April
>> time frame and the re-chartering discussion took me by surprise. I have
>> to manage time to propose some text on this.
>>
>> To conclude, we do have the 2 drafts (RO Problem Statement and RO
>> solution space analysis). These drafts are providing good input for
>> deciding what is reasonable to do, so I would recommend everyone to  read
>> them if it's not already done, and to take a look at the presentation
>> material from Vancouver.
>>
>> Thierry.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 19 May 2006 10:45:36 -0700
>> Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> James Kempf wrote:
>>>> Vijay,
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe the route optimzation problem is well enough 
>>>> understood,
>>>> from a research standpoint, that standardization of a general  solution
>>>> is possible? From the reading I've done, it seems like there is a
>>>> considerable diversity of opinion about the most technically optimal
>>>> approach.
>>>
>>> I need to do some reading myself. I haven't kept
>>> up to date on many of the route optimization
>>> solution drafts. :(
>>>
>>> well, we have a bunch of solutions and a draft
>>> that analyzes the solution space.
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space- 
>>> analysis-02.txt
>>>
>>> based on this, we either decide to go ahead with
>>> working on a solution or decide we are not going
>>> to standardize a solution. another option is to
>>> standardize two or more solution drafts as
>>> experimental RFCs and see how it goes.
>>>
>>> the wording in the proposed charter is vague. it
>>> just says continue investigating (or something
>>> like that) the route optimization problem.
>>>
>>> Vijay
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>            jak
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vijay Devarapalli"
>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>> To: "T.J. Kniveton" <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: "ml-nemo WG" <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 2:58 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [nemo] New versions of charter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> hi TJ,
>>>>>
>>>>> my understanding was that there will also be a general
>>>>> purpose route optimization solution. and this solution
>>>>> would not depend on geographically distributed HAs.
>>>>> this is not mentioned anywhere in the charter. the
>>>>> charter only talks about "Analysis of the Solution
>>>>> Space for Route Optimization".
>>>>>
>>>>>> The working group has work items to describe a basic solution for
>>>>>> network mobility in IPv6-only networks, and to design a mechanism to
>>>>>> allow mixed IPv4/IPv6 networks, carrying signalling messages that
>>>>>> describe both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and mobile network prefixes. 
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> latter task is shared with the Mobile IPv6 working group,  addressed 
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> a joint design team.
>>>>>
>>>>> this is just DS-MIPv6 (with appropriate extensions for
>>>>> IPv4 mobile network prefixes), right? nothing more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vijay
>>>>>
>>>>> T.J. Kniveton wrote:
>>>>>> I have posted a new version of the proposed charter (on the web 
>>>>>> page)
>>>>>> to replace the April 30 version. Some of the changes include:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Added some text about v6, v4 and v4/v6 solution distinctions.
>>>>>> - Added some additional text throughout the tasks/nontasks
>>>>>> - Added editing and typo fixes as suggested
>>>>>> - Other suggested changes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One remaining comment which I have not addressed yet:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James Kempf wrote:
>>>>>>> I am very much in favor of making WG charters very specific. It
>>>>>>> helps to avoid ambiguity about what the WG is intending to
>>>>>>> accomplish, and also helps focus the energy of the WG and avoid
>>>>>>> having it become distracted by other proposals that tend to pop  up,
>>>>>>> until the originally promised work is completed. Therefore, I  would
>>>>>>> recommend that the charter include a bulleted list with three  items
>>>>>>> corresponding to each of these new drafts, with each item giving a
>>>>>>> concise but complete description of what the promised draft is
>>>>>>> intended to accomplish. If there are existing individual drafts 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> cover these, the descriptions can be based on the individual 
>>>>>>> drafts.
>>>>>>> Also, it might be helpful to be more specific about the goals and
>>>>>>> their timing. Rather than just a single goal, have a list that
>>>>>>> correspond to the process: 00 WG draft selected by this time, WG
>>>>>>> last call by this time, submission to IESG by this time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Some help would be appreciated with this one). I think we still 
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> to adjust the milestones a bit more to make sure everything is
>>>>>> explicitly spelled out. I have tried to make the charter as  concrete
>>>>>> as possible, while still short enough to be manageable/readable. I
>>>>>> would like the next revision to focus on the milestones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can people please read this over and make comments/suggestions,  with
>>>>>> proposed text changes? That would be helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> TJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Thierry ERNST, PhD
>> INRIA Rocquencourt Projet IMARA
>> [phone]
>>
>>
>
>
>
>