[nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2005-03-30 9:33 pm [e-mail] said the following:
[...]
> A number of transition scenarios have been identified in IDs: 
> 1. draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios-01
> 2. draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-03
> While discussion of these scenarios in the larger scope makes sense,
> there is a need to focus on the most critical scenario that would
> address the MIP6 host and router problem. The problem in a single
> sentence can be stated as: "Mobile IPv6 hosts and routers (NEMO) need
> to be able to reach its (IPv6) home agent and services when roaming in
> and attached to an IPv4 access network."
> It makes sense to focus on just this one scenario and solve the
> problem immediately. 

Given that there already exists at least 3 solution drafts in this area:

  draft-thubert-nemo-ipv4-traversal
  draft-soliman-v4v6-mipv6
  draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel

and Sri clearly indicates that there are requirements which these
don't cover, I think it would be good to have a clear and agreed
upon statement of what to achieve before adopting an approach and
draft.  So I'm not for adopting draft-wakikawa before there is an
agreed upon problem statement.

That said, I'm very much in favour of doing this work; and doing
it by extensions to MIP6 (and MIP4) rather than trying to adapt
any of the other approaches which would mix MIP6 with non-MIP tunnels,
as listed in draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios-01.

If the decision is to write a problem statement, I'd be willing to
work on such a draft, and I also have a potential co-editor who have
indicated willingness.

> The ID: draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel-01 solves the problem of a MIPv6 
> mobile node or a NEMO mobile router roaming onto a IPv4 only access
> network in a simple manner. 
> It is intended that the standardization of this solution in the IETFs
> MIP6 and/or NEMO working groups proceed. The working group chairs have
> reviewed and discussed this work item. It has also been presented at
> the MIP6 and NEMO WGs at IETF62. 
> 
> The chairs would like to hear your thoughts in order to see if there
> is consensus to make it a WG document and progress it as a standards
> track RFC. Comments should be sent to both the NEMO and MIP6 WGs. 
> 
> If we have consensus, then the document will be pursued as a dual WG
> item and called draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4tunnel-xx.txt 
> 
> Make I-D draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WG ID:
> 	For 		[  ]
> 	Against 	[  ]
> 

	Not currently	[ X ]


Henrik