Re: [netlmm] About the Agenda for the meeting - your input is needed

["Soininen Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[e-mail]>]

Certainly.

ext [e-mail] wrote:
> Jonne,
>
> While you are at this, you should also talk to Dime chairs
> about equivalent Diameter work.
>
> Cheers,
> 	Jouni
>
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] 
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Soininen Jonne 
>> (NSN - FI/Espoo)
>> Sent: 3. maaliskuuta 2008 23:26
>> To: ext Basavaraj Patil
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [netlmm] About the Agenda for the meeting - your 
>> input is needed
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think what Raj proposes makes sense and I will start the discussion 
>> with the radext chairmen.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jonne.
>> ext Basavaraj Patil wrote:
>>     
>>> The reason why MIP6 tool on the radius extensions work was 
>>>       
>> because the
>>     
>>> chairs believed that most of the competence for the work 
>>>       
>> was in the MIP6 WG.
>>     
>>> Radext chairs were okay with working on it as a joint WG 
>>>       
>> document and ensure
>>     
>>> that the last call and reviews are done by both WGs.
>>>
>>> In the case of Netlmm as well, I think it would be best to 
>>>       
>> consult with the
>>     
>>> Radext chairs their opinion about the work being done as a 
>>>       
>> Netlmm/Radext
>>     
>>> joint WG I-D. 
>>>
>>> -Raj 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/3/08 12:41 PM, "ext Vijay Devarapalli"
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Frank Xia wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi Jonne
>>>>>
>>>>> I am following the practice in  MEXT in which RADIUS 
>>>>>           
>> draft  is included
>>     
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mext/draft-ietf-mip6-radius/.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, it makes sense.
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> Not necessarily. I don't remember why we decided that the RADIUS
>>>> extensions had to be done in the MIP6 WG. Maybe RADEXT didn't
>>>> have the bandwidth for this work. Raj, do you remember?
>>>>
>>>> That shouldn't be the reason why the NETLMM WG should standardize
>>>> the RADIUS extensions for PMIPv6.
>>>>
>>>> Having said, I do think that we should work on the RADIUS
>>>> extensions somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Vijay
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> BR
>>>>> Frank
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[e-mail]>
>>>>> To: "ext Frank Xia" <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Cc: <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 9:14 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [netlmm] About the Agenda for the meeting - 
>>>>>           
>> your input is needed
>>     
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Frank,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought radius extensions would rather be at radext WG 
>>>>>>             
>> than in netlmm.
>>     
>>>>>> This would then be in line with dime and the diameter 
>>>>>>             
>> work as well.
>>     
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonne.
>>>>>> ext Frank Xia wrote:
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Hi Soininen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think  that "RADIUS Proxy Mobile IPv6" is another 
>>>>>>>               
>> topic to consider for
>>     
>>>>>>> rechartering.
>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/draft-xia-netlmm-radius-02.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is necessary mechanism when deploying PMIPv6 using 
>>>>>>>               
>> RADIUS as AAA
>>     
>>>>>>> protocol.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact, the corresponding document, Diamter Proxy 
>>>>>>>               
>> Mobile IPv6, is also
>>     
>>>>>>> being 
>>>>>>> discussed  as a rechartering item in DIME WG.
>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/draft-korhonen-dime-pmip6-03.txt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> To: <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:34 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: [netlmm] About the Agenda for the meeting - 
>>>>>>>               
>> your input is needed
>>     
>>>>>>> Hello everybody,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't have the possibility before today to combine 
>>>>>>>               
>> the agenda, though I
>>     
>>>>>>> kind of knew what to expect. I think we have a problem 
>>>>>>>               
>> for which I would
>>     
>>>>>>> like to ask for your help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all the proposed skeleton is the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Network-based Local Mobility Management (NetLMM)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> TUESDAY, March 11, 2008
>>>>>>> 0900-1130 Morning Session I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chairs: 
>>>>>>> Jonne Soininen <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Vidya Narayanan <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> PRELIMINARIES
>>>>>>> Agenda review
>>>>>>> Blue sheets
>>>>>>> Notes and Jabber scribe
>>>>>>> WG status
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WG DRAFT DISCUSSIONS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Topic: Proxy Mobile IPv6
>>>>>>> Draft: draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-11.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Topic: IPv4 Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6
>>>>>>> Draft: draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-02.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Topic: Interface between a Proxy MIPv6 Mobility Access 
>>>>>>>               
>> Gateway and a Mobile
>>     
>>>>>>> Node
>>>>>>> Draft: draft-ietf-netlmm-mn-ar-if-03
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> POSSIBLE NEW WORK ITEMS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Presentations of the possible new work items
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RECHARTERING DISCUSSIONS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NEXT STEPS and WRAP UP
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> So we have basically 2.5 hours to spend, and we _have 
>>>>>>>               
>> to_ discuss the
>>     
>>>>>>> current WG drafts, and get to understand what are we 
>>>>>>>               
>> doing going forward.
>>     
>>>>>>> The emphasis of the work has to be on these two things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have listed the following requests for presentations 
>>>>>>>               
>> (the order is not
>>     
>>>>>>> important):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Multiple Interface Support with PMIPv6 (15 Min) - Vijay
>>>>>>>  (draft-devarapalli-netlmm-multihoming-02.txt)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -PMIPv6 Heartbeat Mechanism (10 Min) - Vijay
>>>>>>>  (draft-devarapalli-netlmm-pmipv6-heartbeat-01.txt)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -PMIPv6 and MIPv4 interactions (10 min) - Vijay
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Multihoming Scenarios (10 min) - Ahmad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -GRE keying (5 min) - Ahmad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Route Optimization (10 min) - Christian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Inter-MAG Route Optimization (10 min) Ashutosh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Inter-technology handover extensions (10 min) - Marco
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -PMIPv6 support Transient CoA Registration (10 min) - Ahmad
>>>>>>>  draft-muhanna-netlmm-pmipv6-support-transient-coa-00.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Proxy Network Mobility (10 Min) - John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Secondary Binding Cache Entries for PMIP (10 min) - Oliver
>>>>>>>  draft-blume-netlmm-secondary-bce-proxymip6ho-00.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Multiple interface support (10 min) - Mohana
>>>>>>>  draft-jeyatharan-netlmm-multi-interface-ps-01.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Proxy Mobile IPv6 indication and discovery (10 min) - Basavaraj
>>>>>>> draft-damic-netlmm-pmip6-ind-discover-03.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I'm pretty sure I forgot something (please remind 
>>>>>>>               
>> me if I did).
>>     
>>>>>>> The problem is that this does not really fit. We cannot 
>>>>>>>               
>> have all of these
>>     
>>>>>>> presentations and accomplish our main goal of the 
>>>>>>>               
>> meeting. So, I think we
>>     
>>>>>>> have to compress and rethink the presentations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I see some patterns/groups (again the order is 
>>>>>>>               
>> not of importance):
>>     
>>>>>>> Interaction
>>>>>>>  -PMIP6-MIP4
>>>>>>>  -PMIP6-MIP6 (presented in earlier meeting)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Multiple interface support/Multihoming
>>>>>>>  -Vijay
>>>>>>>  -Mohana
>>>>>>>  -Ahmad
>>>>>>>  -Marco?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Route Optimization
>>>>>>>  -Christian
>>>>>>>  -Ashutosh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Multiple COA Registration
>>>>>>>  -Ahmad
>>>>>>>  -Oliver
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Others
>>>>>>>  -GRE keying (Ahmad)
>>>>>>>  -Heart Beat (Vijay)
>>>>>>>  -PMIP indication and discovery (Basavaraj)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could we do some grouping here or cooperation to get 
>>>>>>>               
>> the different problems
>>     
>>>>>>> areas at least presented? In addition, I would think it 
>>>>>>>               
>> would be good to
>>     
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> the items presented that it seems our "customers" like 
>>>>>>>               
>> 3GPP, 3GPP2, and
>>     
>>>>>>> Wimax Forum expect us to get done. I think this is 
>>>>>>>               
>> extremely important
>>     
>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>> for the rechartering discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any ideas or suggestions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jonne.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS. I think we will let only the people enter the 
>>>>>>>               
>> meeting room who have
>>     
>>>>>>> commented/reviewed the remaining WG items we have in 
>>>>>>>               
>> the current charter...
>>     
>>>>>>> ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS/2: Any volunteers for Jabber scribes and minute takers?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> netlmm mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netlmm mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netlmm mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
>>>   
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> netlmm mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
>>
>>     

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm