[netext] IETF87 WG meeting minutes

Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com> Wed, 28 August 2013 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <bpatil1@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0589121F9EC4 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1tR+dgXpF3Dm for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x236.google.com (mail-oa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77ECC21F9E88 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id n10so2311968oag.27 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=A5EQK7wvM2xDUM4/NJK1Xbx/aFOzxsChwZ5QiEv3Y1A=; b=Kiy7Ql9W7aAsq6RXp+eFshaJh2Nd1MU+2vAye5xkxmEAMtaQIcweZelx7JaDhB51Jk YGcYUkzuuyN8irKil59m+9D9bcYvb6q/YBhoHt0+xqKsE+52yKgvCYBNnZPvopiJbNiH fItY/MWSd4WCfZhLFO/tMUbN8l3QwFrcd1NgYnvv7O1X7ESc3rP7putFAB2/Jgfsu5sx lK4klPD40fgcCtdRIz5+DrkntFABMIz9PgVndGuRjCIsDpF95WDTtg3ZRgokIjMYvveC riBYFd2VnExt2r+gzZhdZXPKpOaRRlaiaj8FCztwiyds7iTtzkS8m8M8y6TaLEeyslZo ueJg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id ns5mr7061987obc.62.1377705394970; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:56:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA5F1T0TFTCLywHrgqPTJdDVN6Dxm0ShLo-nwZAb3ZvEPmu7cg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>
To: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c344f4ac788b04e50408f8
Subject: [netext] IETF87 WG meeting minutes
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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/options/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, 28 Aug 2013 15:56:37 -0000

Minutes of the Netext (Network-Based Mobility Extensions) working
group meeting at IETF87

TUESDAY, July 30, 2013,  Afternoon Session I (1300-1500)
Room: Tiergarten 1/2

Credits for the minutes:
1. Charles Perkins
2. Sandra Cespedes

The chairs would also like to thank Suresh Krishnan for chairing the
meeting at short notice because of travel issues faced by the current
co-chair, Basavaraj Patil who was able to make it to the meeting for
just the last 15 minutes. Rajeev Koodli (co-chair) participated
remotely via jabber/meetecho.

- Update on working group documents presented by Suresh.

Discussion of the WG documents follows:
- Revision of documents that will be on Last Call. The process will be
  on the mailing list.

Juan Carlos-> There is the WG draft pertaining to the logical
interface from 2007. It has received comments but it has been stalled
for at least a year. That's something that should be addressed.
Sri-> Julien said all the comments have been resolved. So the document
should be ready for the last call.
Suresh --> Is there something you have to present right now? If not,
then write it to the mailing list.
Sri--> The only issues that were brought up have been already
resolved. Changes will be highlighted at the mailing list.

Comment from Rajeev:
Chairs think that we need some discussion on on LIF


1. Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility
   I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob
   CJ Bernardos

Charlie --> How can you tell if the policies are consistent
Carlos --> You can use many mechanisms. Depend on the deployment but
the draft doesn't defining a specific mechanism.
Suresh --> It is a difficult issue. That is way the decision is to
leave that  outside of the scope of the document
Juan Carlos --> The idea here and the reason for concern is that the
document needs to clarify the need for the policies to be consistent.

Behcet -> (Related to his comments on the draft) I'm tired of talking
about this.  There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is this
issue. I have posted it to the list and didn't get a reply after 3
Suresh --> Look for the information on the tracker.
Behcet --> I can't find it now. Maybe next week.
Carlos: I copied the description from the tracker. It is about using
the BID when you have different bindings  for different
connections. We are using the binding updates to use them with
different flows.
Suresh: Please take 5 minutes to read the comment of Behcet and
indicate if you think there is a problem.
Sri: I don't see issues about using BID. State is created on the
LMA. I don´t understand why are you arguing on this issue for many
months. I think the draft is fine as is.
Juan Carlos: I'm trying to read through. I don't see any issue on this
one. I don't think there is any problem.
Ruji: I didn't follow this problem. I don't see the problem here.
Marco: I don't see the issue. It's just about the identification.
Charlie: You are using the BID to identify the flow?
Carlos: No, it's for identifying the MAG, for the flow you have flow
Charlie: You can use the BID for a flow ID.
Carlos: You need to identify the different flows to identify the
Marco: It is only used for the identification of the binding, so the
LMA can identify it.
John: I haven't follow in detail but I don't see any problem with this.
Suresh: I personally think it's fine, but let the list decide and give
Behcet time to think more about this.

Suresh: What is the relation of this document with the logical
interface's draft. Is that required for this draft?
Carlos: There is no normative requirement.


2. Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
     I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-03
Marco Liebsch

Charlie: Bearers are not trivial to be explained.
Marco: We received the comment to clarify the role of bearers in the
document. Bearers and TFT are related to cellular environments, so
here we should not talk about those specific things but instead about
policies per-mobile node and per-flow.
Suresh: I think it's good if you receive more comments on this
draft. Volunteers: Charlie, Josh, Rajesh. Get back with comments in
three weeks.


3. Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6
I-D: draft-wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-00
R. Wakikawa

Suresh: The goal is to gauge whether there is WG support to adopt this
draft at the end of this session.

Ryuji: separation of control plane and user plane
also need to update for the alternate CoA option
- UP and CP addresses of LMA can be co-located, not specified
- WiFi scenario (WLC == wireless LAN controller)
- has been proposed repeatedly proposed since 2008
- Charlie has agreed to work togethero on this document

Rajeev (jabber): Is there a a need for the WLC and MAG to be collocated?
Ryuji: No, we use it here just as an example.
Marco: I think it's a useful work. How far should this extension go?
Ryuji: We are thinking on defining a single mobility option. Just the
Suresh : Calls for voting on adopting the document.
The room agrees on adopting the draft.


4. Dynamic CoA Support for PMIPv6
Sri Gundavelli

Sri presenting: Indicates the draft is not ready yet.

Bulk Revocation needs a MAG identifier, which is not specified
MAG identifier proposal is close to the format in RFC 4382

No comments from the WG. Need a draft before further discussion.


5. Mapping PMIP Quality of Service in WiFi Network
I-D: draft-kaippallimalil-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-02
J. Kaippallimalil

John Kaippallimalil
- has been presented in [netext] before
- is complementary to the PMIP QoS draft
- WiFi AP is modeled as a PEP, as well as WLC
- QoS information from WLC to WiFI AP
- PMIP 802.11e mapping
- WiFi AP does not know how to control traffic
according to WLC / PEP parameters
- What about QoS from the client (i.e., upstream)?
- Marco Liebsch: current QoS draft should be aligned
-- John K. It is intended to be aligned
- Marco: No mechanism yet on the MAG to retrieve the QCI
- Brian: comment from Rajeev: does the draft assume a particular
802.11 implementation?

<Basavaraj shows up finally>

- Sri, Marco: Looks like a reasonable effort
- Charlie: What is the connection between AP <--> WLC versus
PMIP?  If IP-within-IP replaced PMIP, would anything change
- Document review: Charlie, Ashutosh, Rajesh, Marco

Meeting adjourned at 2:13pm


Basavaraj Patil