Subject: [nemo] Recharter items

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 16:27:06 +0900

Hi,

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:43:22 +0200
Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thierry Ernst wrote:
> > And, in Vancouver, we need to answer the question "what are the next
> > steps for the NEMO WG. Are we going to conclude the WG (if yes, with
> > which missions), or recharter?"
> 
> _If_ new Charter, I'd support the following new missions as part of
> it:-v4 stuff
> -clarifying DHAAD interactions.
> -deployment aspects, implementation feedback, eventual implementation
>  feedback about security leaks.

Let me change this thread to what it is about, i.e recharter items:

Could you clarify all of the above points ? I'm not sure we had any
discussion for some of them, and about the last one, I don't see what it
has to do with a WG in the Internet Area. 

Let me add more things to the list, coming from the multihoming
analysis draft:
- multihomng considerations in prefix delegation 
- loop prevention in nested NEMO
- MR synchronization

And, the following, for which we need more discussion to know if it
should be dealt with NEMO WG or another WG:
- HAHA
- RO (see thread Next steps in RO and particularly ChanWah's email on
Nov.03)

I would appreciated that any response to this mail would add the
respective item in the subject line.

Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:03:29 -0800

Thierry Ernst wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:43:22 +0200 Alexandru Petrescu 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Thierry Ernst wrote:
>> 
>>> And, in Vancouver, we need to answer the question "what are the 
>>> next steps for the NEMO WG. Are we going to conclude the WG (if 
>>> yes, with which missions), or recharter?"
>> 
>>  it: -v4 stuff -clarifying DHAAD interactions. -deployment aspects,
>>  implementation feedback, eventual implementation feedback about 
>> security leaks.
> 
> discussion for some of them, and about the last one, I don't see what
>  it has to do with a WG in the Internet Area.

YEs, clarifying the above points.

v4 stuff: all related to v4 traversal and NEMOv4 extensions to MIP4.  We
had discussion about that on the mip6 list, because the mip6trans was
announced there first.  It's been announced here too so I sollicited
comments from authors here too.

Clarifying DHAAD interactions: implementation feedback shows that NEMO
basic support has a strong dependency on DHAAD implementation.  If DHAAD
is not implemented then some NEMOv6 BAck error codes are never used.
DHAAD not being implemented is a common case knowing that secure DHAAD
is difficult to implement (the anycast aspects).

Deployment aspects: when NEMOv6 is deployed on larger-than-lab-prorotype
scale (and _if_) then most certainly some deployment feedback will be
made on rfc3963.   It's good to have a place to receive these comments.

> analysis draft: - multihomng considerations in prefix delegation - 
> loop prevention in nested NEMO - MR synchronization

I personally don't see exactly where other than monami6 multi-homing
aspects should be dealt with.

Loop prevention: let's discuss.

MR synchronization - what's it?

> should be dealt with NEMO WG or another WG: - HAHA - RO (see thread 
> Next steps in RO and particularly ChanWah's email on Nov.03)

HAHA: I don't know.

> respective item in the subject line.

YEs, that is a reasonable thing to do, just that in this email I've
tried to address all items.  Maybe it's better to make separate emails,
let's see.

Thanks,

Alex