Subject: [nemo] Recharter items: multihoming - HAHA ?

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:49:19 +0900

I missed this mail.  Comments inline.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:37:26 +0200
Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thierry Ernst wrote:
> > But, as a NEMO chair, I need to make sure it's a consensus of the 
> > NEMO WG that: 1. Monami6 is the best place, according to the NEMO WG
> >  2. The NEMO WG is not willing to work on the topic in the NEMO WG 
> > (for some reasons, like rechartering, and above all work efficiency 
> > and complementarity)
> 
> I personally am not willing to work on HAHA types of protocols, not at
> this time, for reasons of reachartering and work efficiency.
> 
> > So, if we can discuss now on NEMO ML if we think a solution like
> > HAHA
> >  must be standardized, and that this should be done in Monami6, may 
> > be we can discuss this point in Vancouver
> 
> Yes, best starting discuss now; but we've already said that.  Why
> don't we start with authors giving their oppinion about what their
> intentions are with respect to which WG?  Or some technical advantage
> of HAHA for NEMO?
> 
> > (in the NEMO WG or MONAMI6 or both depending on the progress of the 
> > discussion).
> 
> It would be nice if we could avoid same topic presented in several
> meetings.  And it's already been presented here.
> 
> >>> 2. if yes, where ? 3. if "where" is identified, we need to rise 
> >>> the discussion in the given WG which will decide if it's solvable
> >>>  in a reasonable amount of time and possibly add a new item.
> 
> IMHO - not in NEMO, not now in NEMO.
> 
> >> I agree with that.  In this way probably more slots will be 
> >> available during the NEMO meeting for other-than-HAHA discussions? 
> >> HAHA discussions and presentations on NEMO happened twice 
> >> (Washington and San Diego).  If it still appears in the Vancouver 
> >> agenda it should be relatively short I believe.
> > 
> > Agree it should be short, in the meeting. So, we have 1 week to
> > drive
> >  a WG consensus on this point on the ML.
> 
> I said _if_ it still appears...
> 
> >>> => but it's our responsability as the NEMO WG members to push for
> >>>  the relevant discussion to happen on the designed WGs.
> >> 
> >> Thierry, is this with the NEMO Chair hat on or as a NEMO WG member?
> >>  If you believe that NEMO responsability is to do something then, 
> >> as a Chair you have the maximum responsibility, please do it.
> > 
> > 
> > I would say it's a personal message with a NEMO chair profiled hat, 
> > but I didn't sync with TJ, so this may not be a "NEMO chairs" view.
> > 
> > To answer your question, responsability of chairs is to make this 
> > discussion happen and to drive the conclusions, possibly report the 
> > conclusion to other chairs or IESG. But it's not the chair 
> > responsability to decide. It's the WG's. And, for this, we need the 
> > discussion to be happening on NEMO ML right now. (actually, we need 
> > to discuss the entire process or rechartering NEMO, I guess TJ and
> > me
> >  need to initiate this debate on a separate thread)
> 
> Right.
> 
> Until Charter discussion starts, do you want me to send message to
> Monami6 about HAHA?

Well, I don't know. I would say any list is fine, but probably NEMO is
better to start with so that we could come up with a conclusion on this
point in the NEMO WG first. Let me point out the HAHA is documented as
issue 4.4
http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-04.html#sec:problem.hasync
in draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-04.txt

> If I start reviewing the HAHA documents posting on Monami6 do you
> think I raise any chance that other people will review documents I'm
> currently interested in (FMIP, RO, v4 traversal and v4 in general)?

I'm not sure what you mean, here. Particularly, what FMIP has to do
with NEMO ?

Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:06:56 -0800

Thierry Ernst wrote:

> Well, I don't know. I would say any list is fine, but probably NEMO
> is better to start with so that we could come up with a conclusion on
> this point in the NEMO WG first. Let me point out the HAHA is
> documented as issue 4.4 

My personal conclusion is that we've already discussed HAHA several
times here.  I don't think the HAHA protocols themselves have evolved since.

>> think I raise any chance that other people will review documents
>> I'm currently interested in (FMIP, RO, v4 traversal and v4 in
>> general)?
> 
> 

Sorry, I meant to say that I personally would like to have feedback on
my own discussions on FMIP on the the mipshop mailing list.  Some people
on the nemo list are also active on the mipshop list.

What does HAHA have to do with NEMO?

Alex

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:15:33 -0800

> What does HAHA have to do with NEMO?

In my view, the global HAHA, which allows distributed HAs, is a real  
deployment issue for situations with large distances being traversed.  
The WG has received input from Boeing, NASA, and I believe an  
aeronautics organization, that this is a desired feature for RO in  
their networks. So to me, it seems that we should work on this, if  
people in the WG are interested.

For local HAHA, which provides a cache coherency protocol, the topic  
is availability and load balancing. I am not as convinced this is  
something we need to work on, right now, in NEMO. But that's my  
personal opinion, and perhaps if someone has a convincing argument,  
we can discuss that.

TJ

---

From: ivancic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 16:24:55 -0500

Yes, TJ is correct.   HAHA is very desirable for the Aeronautics
community  (National AERONAUTICS and Space Administration(.   I suspect
military organizations, bovernments, coast guard, and any widely
disperse organization would find this very useful.

Will  (a NASA guy)

******************************

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 06:29:45 +0900

Hi TJ

On 2005/11/10, at 5:15, T.J. Kniveton wrote:

> In my view, the global HAHA, which allows distributed HAs, is a  
> real deployment issue for situations with large distances being  
> traversed. The WG has received input from Boeing, NASA, and I  
> believe an aeronautics organization, that this is a desired feature  
> for RO in their networks. So to me, it seems that we should work on  
> this, if people in the WG are interested.

agree, it worth to work on this topic. There are interests from  
several groups.

> For local HAHA, which provides a cache coherency protocol, the  
> topic is availability and load balancing. I am not as convinced  
> this is something we need to work on, right now, in NEMO. But  
> that's my personal opinion, and perhaps if someone has a convincing  
> argument, we can discuss that.

Differences between local HAHA and global HAHA are basically  
operational things.

There are three HAHA related documents.
We separated documents because of WG inputs when we presented HAHA in  
NEMO WG.

- The base spec.
- Local HAHA
- Global HAHA

The base spec. is defined for the HAHA protocol spec and latter two  
documents describe operational matter of the HAHA protocol.
If we go for the global HAHA, we need to discuss both the base spec  
and the global HAHA.

regards,
ryuji