Subject: [Mip4] Proposed charter update for NEMOv4 work

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:08:36 +0200

Hi,

  We're working on a charter update for MIPv4.  One of the things
we'd like to add is a work item covering the NEMOv4 specification.

We'd like to add the following item to the charter:

  11. NEMO v4 Support

  The Network Mobility (nemo) working group deals with the problem
  of mobility of a whole network, such as might exist inside a
  vehicle, train, or airplane.  The nemo working group has
  developed draft specifications for both IPv6 and IPv4 mobile
  networks.  However, it has been recognized that the IPv4
  version of the protocol can be viewed as an extension of
  the basic Mobile IPv4 protocol, and there is good reason
  to do this extension in the mip4 working group.  The
  working group will take on the NEMO v4 internet draft and
  progress it along the standards track.

If you have comments on this, please send them to the list.

Regerds,

	Henrik and Pete

(The resulting full charter text is here:

  Description of Working Group:

  IP mobility support for IPv4 nodes (hosts and routers) is specified in
  RFC3344. RFC 3344 mobility allows a node to continue using its
  "permanent" home address as it moves around the Internet. The Mobile
  IP protocols support transparency above the IP layer, including
  maintenance of active TCP connections and UDP port bindings.Besides
  the basic Mobile IPv4 (MIPv4) protocols, several other drafts deal
  with concerns such as optimization, security, extensions, AAA support,
  and deployment issues.

  MIPv4 is currently being deployed on a wide basis (e.g., in cdma2000
  networks). The scope of the deployment is on a fairly large scale and
  accordingly, the MIP4 WG will focus on deployment issues and on
  addressing known deficiencies and shortcomings in the protocol that
  have come up as a result of deployment experience. Specifically, the
  working group will complete the work items to facilitate interactions
  with AAA environments, interactions with enterprise environments when
  MIPv4 is used therein, and updating existing protocol specifications
  in accordance with deployment needs and advancing those protocols that
  are on the standards track.

  Work expected to be done by the MIP4 WG as proposed by this charter is
  as follows:

  1. MIPv4 has been a proposed standard for several years. It has been
  adopted by other standard development organizations and has been
  deployed commercially. One of the next steps for the WG is to advance
  the protocol to draft standard status. As part of advancing base
  Mobile IP specs to DS, the MIPv4 NAI RFC (2794) will be revised to
  reflect implementation experience

  2. Work items that are pending from the previous Mobile IP WG, which
  will be completed by the MIP4 WG, are:

  - completion of the MIB for the revised base Mobile IP specification
  (2006bis)

  - regional registration draft.

  3. The MIP4 WG will also complete the work on MIPv4 interactions in
  VPN scenarios. This work will involve identifying the requirements and
  a solution development for MIPv4 operation in the presence of IPsec
  VPNs.

  4. Additionally, a proposal has been made for how MOBIKE could work
  together with MIPv4. This proposal does not describe any new protocol,
  but formulates a best current practice for deploying MOBIKE together
  with MIPv4. The working group will adopt and complete this document.

  5. Some issues have been raised with respect to RFC3519. These will be
  identified and addressed as appropriate, through errata, revision of
  RFC 3519, and/or supplemental documents as needed.

  6. It has been proposed that the FMIP protocol, which has been
  standardised for MIPv6 in the MIPSHOP working group, should also be
  published as an experimental protocol for MIPv4. A draft for this
  exists. The working group will take up and carry this work forward to
  publication

  7. An extension to carry generic strings in the Registration Reply
  message has been proposed. The purpose is to supply supplemental
  human-readable information intended to the MN user. The working group
  will complete the specification and applicability statement of such an
  extension.

  8. RADIUS attributes for MIP4. A set of RADIUS attributes has been
  proposed for MIPv4.

  The working group will first produce a requirements specification,
  describing how the work differs from the requirements in RFC 2977 and
  the functionality provided by RFC 4004 (the MIPv4 Diameter App). The
  reason why this first step is required is that RFC 3127 shows that
  full RFC 2977 functionality can't be provided by even a considerably
  extended RADIUS, so we need to match the requirements to what can be
  done within RADIUS.

  Provided the requirements work finds approval with ADs and RADEXT WG,
  the workgroup will complete the specification of MIPv4 RADIUS
  attributes, solicit feedback from the RADEXT WG, adjust, and submit
  this for publication. Note that the work may require extensions to the
  RADIUS attribute space which will be handled outside the MIP4 WG.

  9. MIPv4 Extension for Configuration Options.

  Several drafts have proposed extensions to help improve configuration
  of MIPv4 clients. The latest proposal is for a general configuration
  option extension which could carry information such as e.g., DNS
  address and DHCP server address. The working group will take on and
  complete one proposal for a configuration option extension.

  10. Dual-stack Support

  There have been several proposals for how to enable an IPv6 connection
  over a network that supports Mobile IPv4. A protocol enhancement to
  MIPv4 would allow for IPv6 support in a region where Mobile IPv4 has
  already been implemented and deployed. This would allow a dual stack
  mobile node to maintain IPv6 connectivity when using MIPv4. The
  solution would therefore be applicable only to networks that are
  not deploying Mobile IPv6.

  The working group will take on and complete one proposal for IPv6 over
  Mobile IPv4. This work is restricted to a small protocol extension
  similar to current Mobile IPv4 functionality. Support for advanced
  Mobile IPv6 functionality is strictly outside the scope.

  A problem statement covering both Mobile IPv4 and IPv6 dual-stack
  issues is expected to come out of MIP6 WG, and will not be developed
  in MIP4 WG.

  11. NEMO v4 Support

  The Network Mobility (nemo) working group deals with the problem
  of mobility of a whole network, such as might exist inside a
  vehicle, train, or airplane.  The nemo working group has
  developed draft specifications for both IPv6 and IPv4 mobile
  networks.  However, it has been recognized that the IPv4
  version of the protocol can be viewed as an extension of
  the basic Mobile IPv4 protocol, and there is good reason
  to do this extension in the mip4 working group.  The
  working group will take on the NEMO v4 internet draft and
  progress it along the standards track.

)

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

---

From: Tom K Weckstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:14:13 +0300

Hi all.

+1 from me for including the below NEMOv4 goal into MIP4 charter.

BR, Tom

P.S. Nitpick: ", such as might" --> ", which might"

-- 
Tom Weckström                              <[email-masked]>
Secgo Software Oy                          <http://www.secgo.com/>
Lars Sonckin kaari 16, FIN-02600 Espoo
Tel:+358 207 402 555  Mobile:+35840 77 230 77  Fax:+35842 77 230 77

---

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:25:51 -0700

I support the NEMOv4 work for the same reasons Kent/Gopal and others
have indicated.

George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:09 AM
> To: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Mip4] Proposed charter update for NEMOv4 work
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:22:29 -0700

I support this work as well. 

Vidya 

> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:09 AM
>   We're working on a charter update for MIPv4.  One of the 
> things we'd like to add is a work item covering the NEMOv4 
> specification.
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:50:26 +0200

I too support adoption of WG items related to IPv4 network mobility.
I'm co-authoring the NEMOv4 draft.

I've parallely requested a short presentation slot in San Diego meeting.

The draft is at
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-v4-base-01.txt
It's actually a third revision, since it existed as a personal proposal
in NEMO WG, prior to being a WG item there.

The authorship didn't change much since first incarnation, however, the
Ack section was updated to reflect several improvements on the draft.

Looking forward,

Alex

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We're working on a charter update for MIPv4.  One of the things we'd 
> like to add is a work item covering the NEMOv4 specification.
> 
> The Network Mobility (nemo) working group deals with the problem of 
> mobility of a whole network, such as might exist inside a vehicle, 
> train, or airplane.  The nemo working group has developed draft 
> specifications for both IPv6 and IPv4 mobile networks.  However, it 
> has been recognized that the IPv4 version of the protocol can be 
> viewed as an extension of the basic Mobile IPv4 protocol, and there 
> is good reason to do this extension in the mip4 working group.  The 
> working group will take on the NEMO v4 internet draft and progress it
>  along the standards track.
> 
> IP mobility support for IPv4 nodes (hosts and routers) is specified 
> in RFC3344. RFC 3344 mobility allows a node to continue using its 
> with concerns such as optimization, security, extensions, AAA 
> support, and deployment issues.
> 
>  networks). The scope of the deployment is on a fairly large scale
> and accordingly, the MIP4 WG will focus on deployment issues and on 
>  working group will complete the work items to facilitate
> interactions with AAA environments, interactions with enterprise
> environments when MIPv4 is used therein, and updating existing
> protocol specifications in accordance with deployment needs and
> advancing those protocols that are on the standards track.
> 
> Work expected to be done by the MIP4 WG as proposed by this charter 
> is as follows:
> 
> VPN scenarios. This work will involve identifying the requirements 
> and a solution development for MIPv4 operation in the presence of 
> IPsec VPNs.
> 
> together with MIPv4. This proposal does not describe any new 
> protocol, but formulates a best current practice for deploying MOBIKE
>  together with MIPv4. The working group will adopt and complete this 
> document.
> 
> 5. Some issues have been raised with respect to RFC3519. These will 
> be identified and addressed as appropriate, through errata, revision 
> of RFC 3519, and/or supplemental documents as needed.
> 
>  will complete the specification and applicability statement of such 
> an extension.
> 
> this for publication. Note that the work may require extensions to 
> the RADIUS attribute space which will be handled outside the MIP4 WG.
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several proposals for how to enable an IPv6 
> connection over a network that supports Mobile IPv4. A protocol 
> enhancement to MIPv4 would allow for IPv6 support in a region where 
> Mobile IPv4 has already been implemented and deployed. This would 
> allow a dual stack mobile node to maintain IPv6 connectivity when 
> using MIPv4. The solution would therefore be applicable only to 
> networks that are not deploying Mobile IPv6.
> 
> The working group will take on and complete one proposal for IPv6 
> over Mobile IPv4. This work is restricted to a small protocol 
> extension similar to current Mobile IPv4 functionality. Support for 
> advanced Mobile IPv6 functionality is strictly outside the scope.
> 
> The Network Mobility (nemo) working group deals with the problem of 
> mobility of a whole network, such as might exist inside a vehicle, 
> train, or airplane.  The nemo working group has developed draft 
> specifications for both IPv6 and IPv4 mobile networks.  However, it 
> has been recognized that the IPv4 version of the protocol can be 
> viewed as an extension of the basic Mobile IPv4 protocol, and there 
> is good reason to do this extension in the mip4 working group.  The 
> working group will take on the NEMO v4 internet draft and progress it
>  along the standards track.
> 
> )
> 
>

---

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:48:56 -0700

I would also like to give a short presentation on the two extension
drafts for NEMOv4:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tsirtsis-nemov4-dynamic-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tsirtsis-nemov4-fa-00.txt

The idea was that these drafts would become WG drafts too. May I assume
the charter change covers these?

Thanks
George

> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 11:50 AM
> To: Henrik Levkowetz
> Cc: [email-masked]; Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Mip4] Proposed charter update for NEMOv4 work
> 
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-v4-bas
e-
> 01.txt

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:19:38 +0200

Hi George,

> the charter change covers these?

The charter change introduces NEMO/MIPv4 as a MIP4 work item, but
doesn't specifically mention documents.  Assuming that the charter
revision is accepted, the working group will have to adopt individual
draft as working group drafts.

I don't expect adding an item to present these two to the agenda should
be a problem.

Regards,

	Henrik