Subject: [Mip4] Consensus call: draft-tsirtsis-nemov4-dynamic-01.txt and draft-tsirtsis-nemov4-fa-01.txt

From: "McCann Peter-A001034" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:20:56 -0500

During the mip4 meeting in San Diego, we saw a presentation
from George Tsirtsis on two extensions of the nemov4 work.

The charter calls out the work on dynamic address assignment
and FA support as work items for the working group.

This is a call for consensus to see whether we are ready to
adopt these two drafts as working group items.

Please respond by next Friday, February 9th, on whether you
think we are ready to adopt these two drafts as working group
items.

-Pete

-- 
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: "McCann Peter-A001034" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:45:29 -0500

We didn't get any responses to this consensus call.
If you have an opinion on this please speak up.

-Pete

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:51:42 +0100

> If you have an opinion on this please speak up.

Oh yes, sorry it's the 14th already.

I mainly do support the two drafts.

However, I would appreciate if any competitor draft shows up in this 
same direction, such that we take on 'items' and decide for 'documents' 
as 'items' with a better perspective.

I think I do support more the FA work, because it appears to only have 
interactions with NEMOv4 base.  And the tsirtsis draft on FA work - I 
support.

The DAA (dynamic address assignment) may have interactions with dynamic 
HA assignment RFC 4433.  For example could a MR send only _one_ RegReq 
and receive both a MNP _and_ a HA address _and_ a HoA.

The DAA in draft-tsirtsis-nemov4-dynamic-01.txt talks about use of 
Regreq and RegRep to assign prefixes to a NEMOv4 MR.  This mechanism is 
useful and needed at least in the types of deployments I work for.

However DAA may need to interact somehow with DHCP prefix delegation, or 
somehow state they're independent and work together or similar.

It also depends what the NEMO WG does with the two dynamic MNP 
configuration drafts: is that MIP6-based or DHCP-based.  I think v4 and 
v6 DAA should happen the same way (either MIP-based or DHCP-based).

So that's what I think...

Alex

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:45:26 -0800

I support the adoption of these two drafts. I want to send the review
comments later.

Sri

-----Original Message-----
From: McCann Peter-A001034 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:45 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Mip4] Consensus call: draft-tsirtsis-nemov4-dynamic-01.txt
anddraft-tsirtsis-nemov4-fa-01.txt

-Pete

McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
> During the mip4 meeting in San Diego, we saw a presentation from 
> George Tsirtsis on two extensions of the nemov4 work.
> 
> The charter calls out the work on dynamic address assignment and FA 
> support as work items for the working group.
> 
> This is a call for consensus to see whether we are ready to adopt 
> these two drafts as working group items.
> 
> Please respond by next Friday, February 9th, on whether you think we 
> are ready to adopt these two drafts as working group items.
> 
> -Pete