Re: [netext] Draft agenda of WG meeting at IETF77

[<[e-mail]>]

The plan is to have a few slides that lays out the scope and boundaries for
the flow mobility work. Ensure that everyone who is interested in
contributing to this work recognizes what is the minimum functionality that
we would like to specify.
We have also asked for one summary slide from each of the authors of I-Ds
that have a solution for flow mobility. We can briefly discuss whether the
proposal is aligned with the scope of the work.
Hopefully we will see some convergence w.r.t the proposals if we can manage
to get everyone to agree to the scope and fucntionality.
Given that we have many solution proposals for flow mobility, we would like
to solicit the WG in terms of how to proceed in developing a spec as part of
the WG. 

-Raj




On 3/10/10 11:32 AM, "ext MELIA TELEMACO"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Chairs,
> 
> Can you clarify how do you intend to lead the discussion on flow mobility?
> What is the expected outcome other than listing the submitted IDs? Are we
> asking people interested in the issue to converge? Are we discarding part of
> the solutions?
> 
> Looking forward to discuss
> 
> Telemaco
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de
> [e-mail]
> Envoyé : mercredi 10 mars 2010 02:51
> À : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc : [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [netext] Draft agenda of WG meeting at IETF77
> 
> 
> Carlos,
> 
> I took a look at the I-D: draft-bernardos-netext-ll-statement-01. Thanks for
> writing it. We can use this document  to discuss the milestone included in
> the WG charter.
> 
> In terms of the applicability section, I was wondering if you had any
> analysis on how the various approaches could be considered for specifically
> addressing ITHO and flow mobility while factoring in whether a specific
> technique would require changes to the host and if so at what layer.
> 
> I have updated the agenda (
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/10mar/agenda/netext.txt) which includes the
> discussion of this milestone.
> 
> Rgds,
> -Raj
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/9/10 3:59 PM, "ext Zuniga, Juan Carlos"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Raj,
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>> Behalf Of [e-mail]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 09 March, 2010 4:46 PM
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [netext] Draft agenda of WG meeting at IETF77
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Carlos,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3/9/10 3:35 PM, "ext Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear Raj,
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 22:15 +0100, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>> Hi Carlos,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 3/9/10 12:29 PM, "ext Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano"
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Raj,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'ld like to ask why there are slots assigned to drafts that do
>>> address
>>>>>> any WG charter item, while draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps-01
>>>>>> which addresses one of the charter items:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Which specific slots are you refering to?
>>>>> A. The radius extensions for PMIP6 is part of the WG after
>>> rechartering.
>>>>> This work has been transferred from Netlmm to Netext
>>>>> B. The localized routing I-D is the baseline from which we work on
>>> the
>>>>> solution and LR is within the scope of the charter
>>>>> C. ITHO is now part of the charter and I have just included Yokota's
>>> I-D to
>>>>> initiate the discussion.
>>>> 
>>>> As far as I understand Yokota's ID is a particular solution (nothing
>>>> against it), while we are chartered to work on:
>>>> 
>>>> - Informational applicability statement that analyzes the issues
>>>> involved with this approach and characterizes the contexts in which
>>>> such use is or is not appropriate.
>>>> 
>>>> Jul 2010  Initial WG document on Applicability Statement on Logical
>>>> Interface over Multiple Physical Interfaces
>>>> 
>>>> This is exactly what our draft tries to discuss, so I think this is
>>> also
>>>> a good draft to trigger the discussion. Once this is clear, we'll
>>> have
>>>> to think on particular solutions (the virtual interface is one of the
>>>> possible ones).
>>> 
>>> Let me revisit the agenda and also take a look at your I-D and see what
>>> to
>>> do. Basically the fancy wording in the milestone refers to the use of a
>>> virtual interface for supporting ITHO.
>> 
>> Obviously, your interpretation of the fancy wording is not shared by all
>> members of the group.
>> 
>>> 
>>> But thanks for keeping the chairs honest :)
>>> 
>> 
>> No problem. We'll do our best ;)
>> 
>> Jc
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Raj
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Carlos
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The I-Ds may be individual at the moment but the work itself is very
>>> much
>>>>> within WG charter. We will have WG I-Ds (hopefully) on these topics
>>> at the
>>>>> next meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Raj
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jul 2010  Initial WG document on Applicability Statement on Logical
>>>>>> Interface over Multiple Physical Interfaces
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> is on the "if time permits" list.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 19:20 +0100, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>>> Rev: 01
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Network-Based Mobility Extensions WG meeting
>>>>>>> THURSDAY, March 25, 2010
>>>>>>> 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I (Redondo)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. Logistics (Bluesheets, minutes takers, jabber, agenda bashing)
>>> 5 mins
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2. WG status update          Chairs        5 Mins
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3. Runtime LMA selection I-D update   Jouni Korhonen     10 Mins
>>>>>>>    I-D: draft-ietf-netext-redirect-01
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 4. Bulk re-reg I-D update and next steps    Fuad Junior   10 Mins
>>>>>>>    I-D: draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-00
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 5. Radius extensions for PMIP6     Frank Xia       5 Mins
>>>>>>>    I-D: draft-xia-netext-radius-00
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 5. Localized routing solution discussion    Suresh K.       20
>>> Mins
>>>>>>>    I-D: draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-01
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 6. Flow mobility for PMIP6: Solution approaches  Chairs lead
>>> discussion
>>>>>>>    20 Mins
>>>>>>>    We will consider the various I-Ds that have proposed solutions
>>> for
>>>>>>>    flow mobility. Please send a one slide summary of your I-D and
>>>>>>>    solution proposal to : [e-mail]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 7. Inter-tech HO with PMIP6   Hidetoshi Yokota      15 Mins
>>>>>>>    I-D:  draft-yokota-netlmm-pmipv6-mn-itho-support-03
>>>>>>>    We will also discuss the scope of the inter-technology handover
>>>>>>>    work that needs to be undertaken in the WG.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 8. Next steps       Chairs        5 Mins
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Time permitting we will consider the following I-Ds:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (i)  draft-hong-netext-hybrid-hnp-01            Yong-Geun
>>>>>>> (ii) draft-jeyatharan-netext-pmip-dormant-binding-v00   M.
>>> Jeyatharan
>>>>>>> (iii) draft-chan-netext-distributed-lma-03   Anthony Chan
>>>>>>> (iv) draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps-01    Carlos Cano
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> netext mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
>>>>>> GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netext mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext