Subject: [Monami6] MCoA draft

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:11:22 +0200

Folks,

According to the discussion at Vancounver and Dallas, we think that we
reached a rough consensus to accept

Multiple Care-of addresses registration
draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-05

as a WG document for the 3rd deliverable:

   - A protocol extension to Mobile IPv6 (RFC 3775) and NEMO Basic
Support (RFC 3963) to support the registration of multiple Care-of
Addresses at a given Home Agent address [Standard Track].

The document has been improved between the 2 IETF meetings in a way that 
we think meets the request of the WG members as expressed at Vancouver. 
The document will therefore be forwarded to the IETF secretariat.

In the meantime, do not hesitate to (continue to) comment on the draft.

Nicolas & Thierry.

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:36:34 +0800

> reached a rough consensus to accept

Really?  Unless you call a ratio of less than 3 (for) : 1 (against) a
"rough consensus" (which was what I counted in Dallas).

> we think meets the request of the WG members as expressed at Vancouver. 

Again, as mentioned in ML: I see at least two unresolved issues:

- Bulk Registrations.
- Simultaneously at home and foreign.

Having said all that, I am not against moving the draft to WG draft.  In
fact, changing it to WG draft would force us to maintain an issue list,
then we will truly know how many issues there are.  I just wanted to
keep the fact rights.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:05:09 +0200

Hi,

> "rough consensus" (which was what I counted in Dallas).

Most of people were for the adoption of the document as a WG  
document, including AD and chair of other WG.

The few people who were against failed to show major concerns (some  
issues are still unresolved of course, but this can be dealt while  
the document is a WG document.

> - Simultaneously at home and foreign.

Sure, but we didn't say that the document is ready for the IESG.

> then we will truly know how many issues there are.

That's exactly our point, we believe that it is the best way to work  
on the document.

Nicolas

> I just wanted to

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:30:42 +0300

Hi,

I must say that i fully agree with Chan-Wah here...

El 12/04/2006, a las 9:05, Nicolas Montavont escribió:

> Most of people were for the adoption of the document as a WG document, 
> including AD and chair of other WG.
>
> issues are still unresolved of course, but this can be dealt while the 
> document is a WG document.
>

that is not what i recall from the meeting.

imho there was not clear rough consensus in the dallas meeting

however, the decision must be taken on the list i guess

> Sure, but we didn't say that the document is ready for the IESG.

but there was a consensus call in the ml sent by Thierry and people 
brought up those issues as problems in order to accept this  draft as 
wg item (not in order to sent it to the IESG).

this, as i understand it, means that there is no consensus to accept 
this document as a wg item until there is not a clear agreement in 
these issues

in particular, i am concerned about the bulk registration issue. imho 
this is a major issue, because it is not obvious to me that the current 
draft can be extended to support bulk registration cleanly. I would 
like to understand if we think that bulk registration is needed, and if 
it is, how can be fitted into the mcoa draft neatly, without being 
caught in a draft that doesn't naturally includes such feature. That is 
why i think more analysis is needed in this point.

> That's exactly our point, we believe that it is the best way to work 

probably, but the point is that there is no consensus to work on this 
document yet since there is no consensus to accept it as a wg item 
(yet)

regards, marcelo

---

From: Keigo Aso <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:02:03 +0900

Hello,

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:30:42 +0300
marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]> wrote:

> El 12/04/2006, a las 9:05, Nicolas Montavont escribis:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
I agree with what was mentioned above as one of people who brought up
one of these issues.
As for simultaneously at home and foreign, the support for this issue 
should be a part of mcoa draft because this is indeed beneficial for MN
and HA. So, my thinking is that a discussion and agreement on this are
needed before accepting mcoa draft as WG item.

Regards,
Keigo

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:56:22 +0900

Hi Chan-wah

> - Simultaneously at home and foreign.

Right, these are issues brought up on ML.

However, I still don't think the second is an issue.
Keigo's proposal can be also achieved by home network configuration,
which needs no modification to current spec. On the other hand, his  
proposal
may bring several issue which may break notion of MIP's returning home.
We can keep discussing this on ML.

The first one should be Bulk Registration to CN.

ryuji

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:06:05 +0900

Hi Marcelo

On 2006/04/12, at 17:30, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

>> The few people who were against failed to show major concerns  
>> (some issues are still unresolved of course, but this can be dealt  
>> while the document is a WG document.
>>
>
> brought up those issues as problems in order to accept this  draft  
> as wg item (not in order to sent it to the IESG).
>
> this, as i understand it, means that there is no consensus to  
> accept this document as a wg item until there is not a clear  
> agreement in these issues

I give answer to most of issues. The left one is bulk registration to  
CN which we still don't know if it's necessary or not.
THere is no consensus yet to support this in WG. Even if we really  
need, we can continue to discuss this in separate document.

>
> in particular, i am concerned about the bulk registration issue.  
> imho this is a major issue, because it is not obvious to me that  
> the current draft can be extended to support bulk registration  
> cleanly. I would like to understand if we think that bulk  
> registration is needed, and if it is, how can be fitted into the  
> mcoa draft neatly, without being caught in a draft that doesn't  
> naturally includes such feature. That is why i think more analysis  
> is needed in this point.

At least, the current spec can support Home bulk registration, though  
I have to fix some minor issues.
About CN bulk registration, I want to know whether it's really need  
at this point.
At the meeting, there are comments saying bulk registration is enough  
only for home registration.

>> That's exactly our point, we believe that it is the best way to  
>> work on the document.
>>
>
> probably, but the point is that there is no consensus to work on  
> this document yet since there is no consensus to accept it as a wg  
> item (yet)

I believe most of issues can be solved with modifications to MCoA.
Your further comments are really appreciated to complete MCoA.

thanks
ryuji

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:06:56 +0900

Hi Nicolas and Thierry

We will update the MCoA according to discussion on ML and submit it  
to Monami WG soon.

thanks
ryuji

On 2006/04/12, at 0:11, Nicolas Montavont wrote:

> The document has been improved between the 2 IETF meetings in a way  
> that we think meets the request of the WG members as expressed at  
> Vancouver. The document will therefore be forwarded to the IETF  
> secretariat.
>