Re: [shara] Preliminary agenda for SHARA BOF

[<[e-mail]>]

>From the proposed preliminary agenda:

-- Axes for discussion
       -- Impact on classes of applications
       -- Security effects
       -- Scalability
       -- Operations & Management issues

I think what Med was asking for is yet another ramification of the solution space, namely the port randomness preservation. One could argue that it fits into the 'security effects' mentioned above, but it is not limited to.

What I think is missing from the agenda is the SHARA applicability to the scenarios described in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boucadair-port-range-01.txt and http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-aplusp-03.txt

- gabor

  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
  >ext marcelo bagnulo braun
  >Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:03 PM
  >To: [e-mail]
  >Cc: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/MtView); [e-mail];
  >[e-mail]
  >Subject: Re: [shara] Preliminary agenda for SHARA BOF
  >
  >
  >[e-mail] escribió:
  >> Dear Magnus, all,
  >>
  >> Thank your for these clarifications.
  >>
  >> This shortage issue is a hot plate, we all need to handle correctly. As
  >a Service provider, we would like to have means and solutions ready to
  >face the shortage. We would like to avoid introducing nodes and solutions
  >which would delay the migration to IPv6. An effort is required to
  >standardize the port-range based solutions. That's why we have been
  >carrying out this effort at the IETF.
  >>
  >>
  >> Concretely, in addition to the proposed joined solution presentation,
  >we would like to present:
  >>
  >> - Needs and Open Issues (draft-levis-behave-ipv4-shortage-framework)
  >which lists a set of issues to be handled in the context of shared IP
  >addresses (hopefully in cooperation with Mat Ford's proposal).
  >>
  >>
  >ok, i understand you are coordinating with Mat already about this
  >
  >> - Configuration and provisioning solutions (draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-
  >01 and draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option)
  >>
  >>
  >So, i would like to understand a bit more how are we going to manage the
  >exploration of the solutions space.
  >I understand that there will be a joint presentation, including the
  >different proponents of solutions, including  Randy,  you guys,  Remi
  >Despres, Teemu and Gabor, where you are going to present a high level
  >description of the solution space.
  >Now, i am not sure if we should go into the details of the solutions. I
  >mean, discussing how the PPP is extended or how the dhcp port range
  >option should looki, doesn't seem to me to be the right level of
  >disucssion for the bof. Probably we want to stay on a higher level of
  >detail and discuss the overall solution. Maybe some other people can
  >comment on what they think we should spend the time of the bof.
  >
  >So, my take is that with a high level presentation of the solution space
  >wihtout getting into the details of the ppp options and dhcp options
  >should be enough for the bof (of course, if the work is charterted, the
  >particualr disucssion on the solution is relevant, but i am not sure
  >that is the case for the bof)
  >
  >
  >Regards, marcelo
  >
  >
  >
  >> To this end, we think the time slot dedicated to the solutions should
  >be expanded.
  >>
  >> Cheers,
  >>
  >> Med
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> -----Message d'origine-----
  >> De : Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[e-mail]]
  >> Envoyé : mardi 10 mars 2009 14:53
  >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed RD-CORE-CAE
  >> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
  >> Objet : Re: [shara] Preliminary agenda for SHARA BOF
  >>
  >> Everyone,
  >>
  >> I don't know exactly what happened here, the chairs and I have been
  >late at getting a draft agenda together. We are sorry for that. Please
  >note, the agenda is still a draft agenda and open for discussion. The
  >chairs and I are taking feedback on the agenda.
  >>
  >> We are clearly missing some related drafts on certain agenda items. We
  >also have had discussion of joint presentations, apparently the
  >communication to all parties haven't happened. For example the solutions
  >agenda item is intended to include the proposed solutions from all that
  >we know of including Mr Boucadair and co-authors work.
  >>
  >> I would however note that having a draft in a space does not
  >necessarily grant the rights to be on the agenda. The presentation and
  >discussion needs to have a purpose within the scope of the BOF. To me
  >solution overview and issues around the solution space do belong on the
  >agenda.
  >> However in the interest of time management the chairs and I do want
  >joint presentations when possible. The chairs will follow up on this.
  >>
  >> I have had a particular vision for this BOF. One that makes it fit into
  >the ongoing work in Softwires and Behave WG. Splitting people into yet
  >another WG seem to me be only diluting the pool of people working on
  >these problems and increasing the overhead to get work done. Thus this
  >BOF is not WG forming, instead it is run to determine if we should go
  >ahead and charter the work in already existing WGs. To determine that we
  >need to have a discussion about the issue intended to be solved and if
  >there is consensus for the proposed solution space with its trade-offs.
  >>
  >> I am sorry that I have been bad at communicating this openly.
  >>
  >> Regards
  >>
  >> Magnus Westerlund
  >>
  >> IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
  >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  >> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
  >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  >> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
  >> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
  >> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
  >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  >>
  >>
  >
  >_______________________________________________
  >shara mailing list
  >[e-mail]
  >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara