Subject: [Monami6] consensus call on draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:54:43 +0200

During the meeting, chairs asked the attendees if

draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt

shall be accepted for the transport of the policies as described in  
the 4th WG item

[A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for an exchange of  
policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from the  
Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the  
Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The solution involves two  
specifications, one for the policy format and another for its  
transport [both Standard Track]

To this question, nobody voted against at the last Monami6 meeting.  
So, we would like to confirm this decision on the ML.

If you have a specific concern with this decision, please express  
your views until 12:01 am UTC Thursday, August the 16th, 2007

Regards,
the chairs

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

---

From: Koshiro MITSUYA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:21:24 -0700

Hi,

I was not at the last meeting, so I maybe missing some discussion.   
Sorry for the absence.

However:
Is it going to be the only solution draft for the transport?

Other question is:
Did the WG well study requirements for the transport? and draft- 
soliman meets the requirements?

thanks,
Koshiro

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:13:07 +0200

Hi Koshiro,

> Is it going to be the only solution draft for the transport?

Yes

> soliman meets the requirements?

Yes, we discussed this at IETF 68, and had a rough consensus on the  
solution proposed by draft-soliman. We said that a transport within  
the mobility messages was the most straight forward solution and can  
benefit from the security already in place by MIPv6.

Regards,

Nicolas

>> shall be accepted for the transport of the policies as described  
>> in the 4th WG item
>>
>> policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from  
>> the Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of  
>> the Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The solution involves  
>> two specifications, one for the policy format and another for its  
>> To this question, nobody voted against at the last Monami6  
>> meeting. So, we would like to confirm this decision on the ML.
>>

---

From: Koshiro MITSUYA <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 22:05:23 -0700

Hi Nicolas,

Thank you for your quick response.
Please find my comments inline.

On 2007/08/03, at 2:13, Nicolas Montavont wrote:

>> I was not at the last meeting, so I maybe missing some  
>> discussion.  Sorry for the absence.
>>
>> However:

OK, you mean the WG accepts only this draft as the transport solution  
and no other transport solutions will be published from the WG.  I  
then disagree, because draft-soliman does not provide a network- 
initiated filter transport, and because BU/BA needs to carry  
additional error handling for the policy exchange (e.g. In the case  
of error and MN want to try to send policy again, additional BU/BA  
will be required although CoA is successfully installed).

> the mobility messages was the most straight forward solution and  
> can benefit from the security already in place by MIPv6.
>

Yes, I agree that a transport within the mobility messages can  
benefit from the security and it is good.

What about defining a new mobility message (not a mobility option as  
today) for filter rules transport?  If it's a mobility option, the  
option always needs to carry within BU/BA.  But if it an message, MN/ 
HA can exchange filter rules independently of BU/BA exchange, and  
still can benefit from security already in place by MIPv6.

regards,
Koshiro

>>> the Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice  
>>> of the Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The solution  
>>> involves two specifications, one for the policy format and  
>>> another for its transport [both Standard Track]
>>>

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:10:54 +0200

Dear all,

On Aug. 2, we asked for consensus to confirm the acceptance of
draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt as MonAmi6 WG item for the
transport of flow filters (4th working group item on the charter). This 
is a  confirmation of the positive show of hands during the last IETF 
meeting in Chicago (see the MonAmi6 minutes)

Since then we got (only) one feedback from Koshiro Mitsuya who disagrees 
on this decision to accept this personal draft as a WG document (see his 
comments early August on this thread).

Note that during the discussion we had at IETF 68, we agreed that the 
Monami6 WG would define a solution which transports the filter rules 
within the mobility messages, especially to re-use the security 
association between the MN and its HA. Only draft-soliman meets this 
agreement.

So, unless other people express themselves on this list in the next few
days (thus, people who where on vacation in August still have the
opportunity to express their opinion), I think it's reasonable to say 
that we have rough consensus to 
adoptdraft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt as WG document.

That document would then still be in a draft state and any input to 
improve the solution would be welcomed.

Regards,
MonAmi6 WG Chairs Nicolas Montavont & Thierry Ernst

Nicolas Montavont wrote:
> shall be accepted for the transport of the policies as described in the 
> 4th WG item
> 
> [A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for an exchange of policies 
> from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from the Home Agent to 
> the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the Care-of Address and 
> Home Agent address. The solution involves two specifications, one for 
> the policy format and another for its transport [both Standard Track]
> 
> To this question, nobody voted against at the last Monami6 meeting. So, 
> we would like to confirm this decision on the ML.
> 
> If you have a specific concern with this decision, please express your 
> views until 12:01 am UTC Thursday, August the 16th, 2007
> 
> Regards,
> the chairs
>