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

[Basavaraj Patil <[e-mail]>]

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