Re: [nemo] Charter proposal

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

TJ thanks for posting the new Charter proposal.  I've cut through the 
text with some comments, below.

T.J. Kniveton wrote:
> The WG will take a stepwise approach by standardizing some basic 
> support mechanisms based on the bidirectional tunneling approach, and
>  at the same time study the possible approaches and issues with 
> providing more optimal routing than can be had with (potentially 
> nested) tunneling. However, the WG is not chartered to actually 
> standardize a solution to such route optimization for mobile networks
>  at this point in time.

I'd suggest re-phrasing this paragraph, because in the stepwise approach 
the first step for IPv6 has already been achieved and only the IPv4 
basic support is still a future step.

> The WG will work on:
> 
> - Completing editing working group documents that are currently in
> process, and submit for RFC.
> 
> - Continue working on Route Optimization and Multihoming, in order to
> solve the problems that are relevant to NEMO deployments.
> Furthermore, security considerations for the various approaches will
> also be considered.
> 
> - Look into the issues and tradeoffs involved in making the network's
> movement visible to some mobile network nodes, by making them "NEMO
> aware".
> 

> - Address issues with base support RFC and related items, that arise
> during implementation and deployment.
> 
> The WG will:
> 
> - Ensure that solutions will scale and function for the different 
> mobile network configurations, without requiring changes to 
> Correspondent Nodes in the Internet. All solutions will aim at 
> preserving route aggregation within the Internet and will satisfy an 
> acceptable level of security (a thorough survey of new threats and an
>  analysis of their severity will be conducted for any changes
> introduced to the network).

Threats to v6 basic support or threats to the "new" solutions?

> The WG will not:
> 
> - consider routing issues inside the mobile network. Existing routing
> protocols (including MANET protocols) can be used to solve these
> problems.
> 
> - consider general route optimization, multihoming, or other problems
>   that are not related to the deployment and maintenance of NEMO networks.
>
> Goals and Milestones:
> 
> Mar 2006	  	Finish draft on Threat Analysis and Security Requirements for NEMO.

Which draft is this? draft-cho-nemo-threat-multihoming-00.txt, 
draft-jung-nemo-threat-analysis-02.txt
or draft-petrescu-nemo-threats-01.txt?  Or any other?  I can't seem to 
find it.

> Mar 2006	  	Submit Terminology as Informational to IESG
> Mar 2006	  	Submit Goals and Requirements as Informational to IESG
> Mar 2006	  	Submit final doc Multihoming Problem Statement
> Mar 2006	  	Submit final doc on NEMO Basic Support Usages
> Mar 2006	  	Submit final doc(s) on Analysis of the Solution Space for Route Optimization
> Jul 2006	  	Submit final doc on MIB for NEMO Basic Support
> Jul 2006	  	Submit final doc(s) on Prefix Delegation for NEMO
> Aug 2006		Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization for geographically distributed HAs
> Aug 2006		Submit -00 draft on MNN visibility in visited networks
> Aug 2006		Submit -00 draft on (n,n,n) ingress filtering
> Aug 2006		Submit final doc on IPv4 Traversal (with MIP6 working grp)
> Mar 2007	  	Shut down or recharter the WG to solve further identified topics

I would like to suggest an item about NEMOv4 basic support.  The 
document is a WG item and there still seems to be discussion about it 
(I'll follow up to the other thread).

Alex