Subject: [MEXT] Decisions, and next steps proposed in IETF71 MEXT meeting

From: marcelo bagnulo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:05:29 +0100

Hi,

During the two MEXT sessions we had at IETF 71, the WG proposed the 
following Action Points and way forward for the different items discussed.
We attach here a summary of those so that the consensus can be checked 
with the ML. We kindly ask to anyone that has issues/concerns with any 
of the points described below, please comment on the ml.

About WG items:

Mobile IPv6 Dual-Stack Operation
Waiting for Pasi to see if his comments have been addressed

Multiple CoA Registration
3 open issues remain. The issues and the proposed following steps are 
detailed next:
- Issue 1: Sequence number for bindings. Way forward: Accept text 
proposed by editors
- Issue 2: Enhanced RO RFC4886. Way forward: editors to check if MCOA is 
compliant with the methods described in RFC4886 and report to the ML
- Issue 3: Simoultaneous Home and Foreign attachments: editors will 
propose text to the ml and discuss then.
Editors, when can we expect the proposed texts?

Goals for AAA HA Interface
New ID is needed containing the reviews received during WGLC and then 
send it to IESG.
Editors when can we expect the next version?

Route Optimization Needs for Automobile and Highway Deployments
New ID needed addressing comments made on the meeting

Route Optimization Needs for Aircraft and Spacecraft Deployments
New ID is needed addressing comments on the meeting and in the ml.
The draft seems to be in good shape, so it is expected to be stable.
After next version we will assume that is stable and we will keep it as 
WG draft (not send it to the IESG, yet, wait for solution work)

Prefix Delegation for NEMO to the IESG
Strong concensus in the meeting (26 against 2) to work on a DHCP based 
solution to delegate prefixes from the HA to the MR. Next step is for 
authors of the two drafts to work on a unified draft and submit ti the 
WG to decide its adoption.

Solution to aircraft/spacecraft problem
Since the req doc is stable, this work starts now. We foster people to 
start working on solutions, discussing in the ml.

RADIUS Mobile IPv6 Support
No news from the editors of this draft. Editors, any comments?

Analysis of the use of Multiple Simultaneous Care-of Addresses and Home 
Agent addresses
Editors waiting for comments, WG is requested to review the document

Multiple Interfaces Motivations and Scenario
Editors need to address commnets received, new ID is expected

Mobile IPv6 Operation with Firewalls
Editors of the candidate drafts to produce a new version addressing the 
comments received during the meeting

MIB for NEMO Basic Support
WGLC will be issued shortly and then send it to MIB doctor

Flow/binding policy transport
NEw ID is expected, editors what would be the expected date?

Flow/binding policy format
Two candidate documents that were to be merged and proposed to the WG. 
Editors of candiate drafts, any expected date?

updates and corrections of RFC 3775
The period for commnets and update proposal will remain open for a few 
more months and then we will introduce the accepted changes in a 
rfc3775bis draft and send it to IESG

Home agent reliability
WG is requested to review the document

Other items:
MIPv6 home link operation in various SDOs
The disucssion of this item was far from clear. It seems that there is 
at least on issue that requires operational guideline. Discussion to be 
continued in the ml. However, we need to move forward with the recharter 
process, so we need to wrap this up soon.

Residual threat analysis
The WG considered this useful and we expect editors to produce a new 
version of the draft with more details.

Alt-CoA check
Jari will continue working on this, may fit in rfc3775 update.

Regards, Julien and marcelo

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:17:50 +1100

> NEw ID is expected, editors what would be the expected date?

=> We wil try to get it out ASAP. I hope by mid April.

Hesham

---

From: "Giaretta, Gerardo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:33:05 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> marcelo bagnulo
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:05 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [MEXT] Decisions, and next steps proposed in IETF71 MEXT
meeting
> Editors when can we expect the next version?

Mid April.

Gerardo

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:59:10 +0800

Hello Marcelo,

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 16:05 +0100, marcelo bagnulo wrote:

<snipped>

> Editors need to address commnets received, new ID is expected

I think the two of them are mixed up.  It is the Analysis draft
<draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-04.txt> that has some comments which
I promised to resolved by mid April.  The scenario draft
<draft-ietf-monami6-multhoming-motivations-scenario-03.txt> that is
largely done and awaiting for comments to proceed.

<snipped>

> Jari will continue working on this, may fit in rfc3775 update.

How abt the Consumer Electronics Requirements for NEMO Route
Optimization?  It has currently received one set of comments, with some
WG members I met in Philadelphia promising more comments.  I was hoping
to see it move forward as well.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Rute Sofia <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:59:02 +0000

Hello,

cocnerning the scenario draft 
<draft-ietf-monami6-multhoming-motivations-scenario-03.txt>, I can only 
find version 02. Would it possible to send the URL to version 03?

Thanks,
Rute

-- 
Rute Sofia, PhD ([email-masked], +351 22 2094263)
http://www.inescporto.pt/utm/~ian/
Area Leader/Responsa'vel de A'rea
IAN: Internet Architectures and Networking
UTM: Telecommunications and Networking Unit
INESC Porto
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Conny Larsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:36:22 +0100

Hi Marcelo, Julien,

> Editors of candiate drafts, any expected date?
There already exist a merged draft 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-larsson-mext-flow-distribution-rules-00 
that expires the 12th of May. An updated version of the draft will be 
submitted before it expires.

/Conny

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:08:18 +0800

> find version 02. Would it possible to send the URL to version 03?

Well, I see a draft-...-03 in my local cvs directory, I am not sure if
the Editor (Thierry) has published it.  And none was in IETF repository
(expired) ... so I am not sure which was the latest version.  

Let me check back with Thierry and get back to you.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: "George Tsirtsis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:19:26 +0000

You can always check the latest published version (expired or not) of
a draft by googling "tools <name of draft without version>
So if you google "tools
draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario" you get a pointer
to:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-02

George

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:40:53 +0800

Ah, thanks!

So, -02 is the latest publish version.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Rute Sofia <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:31:14 +0000

Hello,

that were the obvious first steps done  but the draft has expired and 
there is indeed an update to 03. Not uploaded. So let's wait for what 
Thierry states...

Rute

---

From: marcelo bagnulo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:44:34 +0100

Hi Chan-Wah,

> largely done and awaiting for comments to proceed.

Right, you need to address George comments, right?

> to see it move forward as well.

In the Consumer electronics requirements, we are in a difficult 
siuation. Nobody is reviewing the document, so it seems that there is no 
interest in progressing with this work, especially with respect to 
solutions.
So, if this continues like this, we won't be able to work on solutions, 
since there doesn't seems to be enough energy at this point for this. 
(We are chartered to produce a req doc, so we need to see how to deal 
with that, but essentially the definition of the req was a mean to 
evaulate the interest on working on solutions and this interest doesn't 
seems to be what is needed to work in solutions at this point imho)

So, the key point here is to get more interest and more dicussuion, 
revisions and so on, to enable work on solution space

makes sense?

regards, marcelo

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:13:15 +0800

Hello Marcelo,

> Right, you need to address George comments, right?

Yes, I will do so next week.

> revisions and so on, to enable work on solution space

Yes, it makes sense.  However, one must also consider that the current
draft is a combined effort from multiple individuals with different
affiliations.  This itself speaks for the interest. 

/rgds
/cwng