Subject: Re: [ipv6-dir] Getting Together in Seoul

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:13:07 +0100

Thomas,

On 2004-02-25, at 22.01, Thomas Narten wrote:

>>> There had been some discussion, at least between the ADs, about
>>> having this group get together in Seoul, maybe for dinner?
>
>> What would be on the agenda?
>
> Perhaps discuss/brainstorm on issues we think maybe receiving
> insufficient attention and/or aren't really being addressed
> sufficiently as they fall somewhere outside of an obvious WG?
>
> Another topic that might be worth discussing is the status of IPv6
> multihoming efforts, and what we expect will happen in Seoul (or hope
> will happen) then. I.e., looking at the multi6 agenda (see below), it
> looks like quite a lot of short presentations on new IDs. Is there any
> particular action item for the WG other than just hear the
> presentations? What will be the next steps? What is the current
> thinking of the winnowing process?

As for the agenda, me and Brian did say that we would draw an end for 
possible submissions before the Seoul IETF. Which has been done. The 
presentation of the drafts is to allow the new (note that we only 
allowed -00 drafts to present).

As for the process, the chairs have submitted a new charter to the ops 
ADs, but haven't heard anything back in a while. (not really true, 
David mailed us this morning, but I was on a flight then)

> Oh, what is Geoff going to cover in his architectural analysis? Is
> there a corresponding draft?

No. At least not yet. The idea is to try and classify and analyze the 
solutions so far presented (I think Brian counted them to 22 + the -00 
drafts). At one point we need to classify the proposals by architecture 
  / architectural impact. The chairs have asked Geoff to make a first 
cut at what this could look like. We need to start this process one way 
or the other, and having some material to discuss around was thought by 
us as a better way to try and steer (not meant as control) the 
discussion.

> What I'm wondering is whether (and how) this group can perhaps help
> the WG, either during the WG meeting itself or in followup.

I think that involving as many as possible, as early as possible is a 
good idea. I am interested in what ideas you have here?

> Note that another related issue is that there are concerns from
> various places about how we're letting a HIP WG go forward when they
> have at least some overlap with the topics here (I know I'm
> simplifying this, but a not entirely inconsequential set of folk seem
> to have this concern).

I have heard this argument a few time now, and I still have a hard time 
understanding it. AFAIK, the HIP WG is looking at developing an 
experimental standard. What model the multi6 WG will eventually 
recommend, have to be developed into a standardstrack standard. Or 
modification of a standards rack standard. Or BCP. Or in principle 
anything besides experimental.

My second (and mostly technical based reasoning) is that HIP does take 
a number of issues for granted. Do they overlap with some of the 
proposals in multi6? Yes. But there is so far no decision, or anything 
indicating, that those are the proposals we will move forward with. 
What happens if multi6 decides on a different track? Note, I do realize 
that is exactly your concern, and I share that, but I think the overlap 
is a good thing :-) Also, HIP from what I have been able to tell, is 
not primarily focusing on multihoming.

>
>>> I am currently free for dinner on Wednesday and Thursday and lunch on
>>> Thursday.
>
>> Either one would work for me.
>
> I think we sort of settled on Thursday lunch, but this is towards the
> end of the week. If we could meet earlier, we have more likelyhood of
> being able to followup on any of our discussions during the week.
>
> Would folk be up for a Sunday evening meeting, say at 9PM? (I gather
> Sunday dinner is already taken for many.)

Ok, see my other mail. I am on the flight to Seoul. I am booked Monday 
dinner, and Thursday dinner. I had reserved Thursday lunch for this. 
What about breakfast on Tuesday? I could at least meet up and discuss 
multi6 if that would be of interest. Let's say that I will be at the 
IETF registration desk at 08.00. Anyone want's to meet up, let's meet 
there.

Best regards,

- - kurtis -

_______________________________________________
ipv6-dir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 15:42:34 -0800 (PST)

> not primarily focusing on multihoming.

I think it is possible to partition the space as follows:
HIP WG + RG: work on protocols which introduce a new name space,
and perhaps restricting this to name space(s) that have 
the property that it is a hash of something (hash of a public key, etc).

MULTI6 can then work on ID/loc separation that either doesn't introduce
a new namespace, or introduces a different type of name space
(e.g. a managed, hierarchical name space).
[I don't think creating a new managed, hierarchical name space is very
useful but that doesn't mean we shouldn't find a home for such
ideas.]

  Erik

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 01:52:42 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

As far as the agenda goes, we at v6ops are trying to make major
decisions on Thursday on transition mechanisms.  I've been drafting
the stuff quite a bit now (the exact requirements imposed by
scenarios, and the tradeoffs of proposals concerning those
requirements and generic requirements), and ran it through a couple of
people for feedback.  Feedback from ipv6-dir could be useful as well..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings