IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] second revision of the new charter for theworking group

<pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com> Wed, 20 January 2010 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD353A67A1 for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:12:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FIzN-uOq6lTr for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:12:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias244.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.244]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06EC93A63C9 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:12:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfeda05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.198]) by omfeda11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id CCBA81B847E; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:12:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by omfeda05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id AB87A18006A; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:12:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:11:58 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:11:59 +0100
Message-ID: <10171_1263982320_4B56D6F0_10171_25834_1_843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C462993FAA@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1C67584E1E@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [netext] second revision of the new charter for theworking group
Thread-Index: AcqY/oAdsgkZFWD4RSCoqO375sWmPwAJaUKQAALkTJAAIkdsUA==
References: <C77ACD0B.36E5D%sgundave@cisco.com> <4B559E01.6030704@piuha.net><853DD750D9C3724FBF2DF7164FCF641C03F9781D@FRVELSMBS14.ad2.ad.alcatel.com> <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1C67584E1E@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>
From: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
To: julienl@qualcomm.com, Telemaco.Melia@alcatel-lucent.com, jari.arkko@piuha.net, netext@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2010 10:11:58.0755 (UTC) FILETIME=[005C9F30:01CA99B9]
X-PMX-Version: 5.5.7.378829, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2010.1.20.94221
Subject: Re: [netext] second revision of the new charter for theworking group
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:12:07 -0000

Hi Julien,


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] De la part
> de Laganier, Julien
> Envoyé : mardi 19 janvier 2010 19:02
> À : MELIA TELEMACO; Jari Arkko; netext@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [netext] second revision of the new charter for theworking
> group
> 
> Hi Telemaco,
> 
> MELIA TELEMACO wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jari,
> >
> > Thanks for the updated text.
> >
> > However, I still believe that the part of the charter referring to the
> > "single host interface" needs to be changed.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> > IMHO the single host interface concept is too restrictive and we should
> > be open to other possibilities. Part of the work should be to
> > investigate what solutions are out there, ideally co-ordinating with
> > the findings of the MIF wg (MIF does not address mobility, we should).
> 
> From its inception the NETLMM WG has assumed no host change, and so far
> NETEXT has abided.
> 
> Now we are discussing extending the charter to unmodified host _IP stack
> operation_, which would let the WG leverage on underlying layers that
> present a single interface to the IP layer while hiding link changes and
> attachment to multiple MAGs.
> 
> This still fits with the original "no host change" motto insofar these
> underlying layers are not in our (the IETF) control and we do not specify
> them.
> 

Actually, the "single interface" approach may not be the only way. For instance, draft-bernardos-mif-pmip leverages on the weak host model (RFC 1122) to address IP flow mobility issue and leave the host unmodified. This is why we think the charter should not be so "solution oriented".

Pierrick

> It's a quite a change, and my understanding is that we have no consensus
> to go beyond that.
> 
> --julien
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

*********************************
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. 
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
********************************

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email