Subject: [nemo] New versions of charter

From: T.J. Kniveton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 11:00:28 -0700

I have posted a new version of the proposed charter (on the web page)  
to replace the April 30 version. Some of the changes include:

- Added some text about v6, v4 and v4/v6 solution distinctions.
- Added some additional text throughout the tasks/nontasks
- Added editing and typo fixes as suggested
- Other suggested changes

One remaining comment which I have not addressed yet:

James Kempf wrote:
> I am very much in favor of making WG charters very specific. It  
> helps to avoid ambiguity about what the WG is intending to  
> accomplish, and also helps focus the energy of the WG and avoid  
> having it become distracted by other proposals that tend to pop up,  
> until the originally promised work is completed. Therefore, I would  
> recommend that the charter include a bulleted list with three items  
> corresponding to each of these new drafts, with each item giving a  
> concise but complete description of what the promised draft is  
> intended to accomplish. If there are existing individual drafts  
> that cover these, the descriptions can be based on the individual  
> drafts. Also, it might be helpful to be more specific about the  
> goals and their timing. Rather than just a single goal, have a list  
> that correspond to the process: 00 WG draft selected by this time,  
> WG last call by this time, submission to IESG by this time.

(Some help would be appreciated with this one). I think we still have  
to adjust the milestones a bit more to make sure everything is  
explicitly spelled out. I have tried to make the charter as concrete  
as possible, while still short enough to be manageable/readable. I  
would like the next revision to focus on the milestones.

Can people please read this over and make comments/suggestions, with  
proposed text changes? That would be helpful.

Thanks,
TJ

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:58:29 -0700

hi TJ,

my understanding was that there will also be a general
purpose route optimization solution. and this solution
would not depend on geographically distributed HAs.
this is not mentioned anywhere in the charter. the
charter only talks about "Analysis of the Solution
Space for Route Optimization".

> The working group has work items to describe a basic solution for
> network mobility in IPv6-only networks, and to design a mechanism to
> allow mixed IPv4/IPv6 networks, carrying signalling messages that
> describe both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and mobile network prefixes. The
> latter task is shared with the Mobile IPv6 working group, addressed by
> a joint design team.

this is just DS-MIPv6 (with appropriate extensions for
IPv4 mobile network prefixes), right? nothing more.

Vijay

T.J. Kniveton wrote:
> I have posted a new version of the proposed charter (on the web page) to 
> replace the April 30 version. Some of the changes include:
> 
>> I am very much in favor of making WG charters very specific. It helps 
>> to avoid ambiguity about what the WG is intending to accomplish, and 
>> also helps focus the energy of the WG and avoid having it become 
>> distracted by other proposals that tend to pop up, until the 
>> originally promised work is completed. Therefore, I would recommend 
>> that the charter include a bulleted list with three items 
>> intended to accomplish. If there are existing individual drafts that 
>> cover these, the descriptions can be based on the individual drafts. 
>> Also, it might be helpful to be more specific about the goals and 
>> their timing. Rather than just a single goal, have a list that 
>> correspond to the process: 00 WG draft selected by this time, WG last 
>> call by this time, submission to IESG by this time.
> 
> (Some help would be appreciated with this one). I think we still have to 
> adjust the milestones a bit more to make sure everything is explicitly 
> spelled out. I have tried to make the charter as concrete as possible, 
> while still short enough to be manageable/readable. I would like the 
> next revision to focus on the milestones.
>

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:35:56 +0300

Hi T.J.

I think that the charter is still missing the identification of actual 
application scenarios that require RO (in particular globally 
distributed HAs) and the requirements that these use cases have.

I think that during the charter discussion so far, the only use case we 
have for RO is the aviation case, which they have these globally moving 
network scenarios, and they have a very clear idea of what the 
requirements are for this case.

I think that it is not straight forward from these preliminary list of 
requirements that they need globally distributed HAs, nor a protocol to 
coordinate them. (It is neither clear they they do not need different 
ISPs for instance, making global HAHA type of solution and contributor 
to the global routing table)

So, as i see it:

- it is clear that the aviation is a relevant use case for RO in 
globally moving networks
- imho we should work to provide a solution for this particular use case
- however, it is not clear what the solution should be (yet)

So, i would suggest to include the following items in the charter:

- Submit a -00 draft describing the requirements for globally moving 
networks
- Submit a -00 draft describing a solution for globally moving networks 
that fulfills the identified requirements
- Remove Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization for geographically 
distributed HAs

bottom line is that Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization for 
geographically distributed HAs is assumning a solution while we still 
haven't a concise requirements list for the problem, which makes it 
hard to evaluate if the proposed solution fits the problem and how this 
solution will be used and the effects that the deployment of such 
solution will have (in particular in the global routing table)

regards, marcelo

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:53:30 +0200

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> hi TJ,
> 
> my understanding was that there will also be a general purpose route 
> optimization solution. and this solution would not depend on 
> geographically distributed HAs. this is not mentioned anywhere in the
>  charter. the charter only talks about "Analysis of the Solution
>> network mobility in IPv6-only networks, and to design a mechanism 
>> to allow mixed IPv4/IPv6 networks, carrying signalling messages 
>> that describe both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and mobile network 
>> prefixes. The latter task is shared with the Mobile IPv6 working 
>> group, addressed by a joint design team.
> 
> this is just DS-MIPv6 (with appropriate extensions for IPv4 mobile 
> network prefixes), right? nothing more.

Maybe something more generic than just DS-MIPv6?  DS-MIPv6 addresses
some relevant transition cases but not all (HA fully-v6 is not addressed).

Alex

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:28:51 -0700

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>> describe both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and mobile network prefixes. 
>>> The latter task is shared with the Mobile IPv6 working group, 
>>> addressed by a joint design team.
>>

well, thats what I was asking TJ. if DS-MIPv6 is
what the chairs have in mind for this or it is
something more.

Vijay

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:37:32 -0700

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> have for RO is the aviation case, 

not true. it was the only one that was discussed.
does not mean its the only one. Pascal pointed out
a few scenarios in addition.

> which they have these globally moving 

not so sure about this. when I talking to Terry at
the one of the IETFs, he told that there is some
kind of aviation forum that is working on the
requirements. I am not sure if the forum is also
going to work on solutions. IMO, we shouldn't be
committing to spending time on this unless we are
told by the aviation folks that they want a solution
from the NEMO WG in the IETF.

I have only heard Terry say they are *interested*. :)
Terry, please correct me if I am wrong.

> - Submit a -00 draft describing the requirements for globally moving 

this we could do.

> that fulfills the identified requirements

not yet. perhaps re-charter again when we conclude
based on the requirements that we can provide a
solution.

Vijay

---

From: "Davis, Terry L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:19:55 -0700

Vijay/TJ/Marcelo

I'm polling some of the keys members of the aviation community that
would be involved in writing the informational RFC to see what the
support for the effort would be.

I should have an idea by week end or early next week.

Take care
Terry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 11:38 AM
> To: marcelo bagnulo braun
> Cc: ml-nemo WG; T.J.Kniveton
> Subject: Re: [nemo] New versions of charter
>

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:50:06 +0300

El 16/05/2006, a las 21:37, Vijay Devarapalli escribió:

>> I think that during the charter discussion so far, the only use case 
>> we have for RO is the aviation case,
>

i must have missed that....

what are the other use cases for RO that there is interest to work 
on?... i remember TJ asking if there were any people from the vehicular 
community that were interested, but i don't recall that there was any 
reply to that request...

>> which they have these globally moving network scenarios, and they 
>> have a very clear idea of what the requirements are for this case.
>> I think that it is not straight forward from these preliminary list 
>> of requirements that they need globally distributed HAs, nor a 
>> protocol to coordinate them. (It is neither clear they they do not 
>> need different ISPs for instance, making global HAHA type of solution 
>> and contributor to the global routing table)
>> So, as i see it:

agree

>> - Submit a -00 draft describing a solution for globally moving 
>> networks that fulfills the identified requirements
>

i may agree with this (i just think that it is likely that we are able 
to find a solution (or more than one :-)

(just to be clear, i was considering global haha as one of the 
candidates solution for this problem, so this charter item was 
substituting Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization for geographically 
distributed HAs)

regards, marcelo

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:57:40 +0200

On Wed, 17 May 2006 09:50:06 +0300

> community that were interested, but i don't recall that there was any 

FYI, the car industry forum I'm involved in are considering NEMO Basic
Support (RFC 3963) at the core of the communication architecture for
vehicle to infrastructure communications. However, they don't
necessarily understand the potential extensions (HAHA, RO, etc) nor the
tradeoff, so they are rather in the process of investigating what they
need, though they already told me they would need RO in some cases.
Right now, the most important concern they have is the IPR issues (I've
told them to check with their lawyers if CISCO and Nokia statements are
an issue or not)

On the very negative side, they are not directly involved with the IETF
so they don't know how to get involved right now and this is why so far
we haven't seen them taking part in the debate. So, I'm urging any one
involved with the car industry on this list  to speak up now,
particurlary regarding deployment issues.

Thierry.

-- 
Thierry ERNST, PhD
INRIA Rocquencourt Projet IMARA
+33 1 39 63 59 30

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 00:28:26 -0700

Vijay,

Do you believe the route optimzation problem is well enough understood, from 
a research standpoint, that standardization of a general solution is 
possible? From the reading I've done, it seems like there is a considerable 
diversity of opinion about the most technically optimal approach.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
To: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "ml-nemo WG" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [nemo] New versions of charter

>>> I am very much in favor of making WG charters very specific. It helps to 
>>> avoid ambiguity about what the WG is intending to accomplish, and also 
>>> helps focus the energy of the WG and avoid having it become distracted 
>>> by other proposals that tend to pop up, until the originally promised 
>>> work is completed. Therefore, I would recommend that the charter include 
>>> a bulleted list with three items corresponding to each of these new 
>>> drafts, with each item giving a concise but complete description of what 
>>> the promised draft is intended to accomplish. If there are existing 
>>> individual drafts that cover these, the descriptions can be based on the 
>>> individual drafts. Also, it might be helpful to be more specific about 
>>> the goals and their timing. Rather than just a single goal, have a list 
>>> that correspond to the process: 00 WG draft selected by this time, WG 
>>> last call by this time, submission to IESG by this time.
>>
>> while still short enough to be manageable/readable. I would like the next 
>> revision to focus on the milestones.
>>

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:45:36 -0700

James Kempf wrote:
> Vijay,
> 
> Do you believe the route optimzation problem is well enough understood, 
> from a research standpoint, that standardization of a general solution 
> is possible? From the reading I've done, it seems like there is a 
> considerable diversity of opinion about the most technically optimal 
> approach.

I need to do some reading myself. I haven't kept
up to date on many of the route optimization
solution drafts. :(

well, we have a bunch of solutions and a draft
that analyzes the solution space.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis-02.txt

based on this, we either decide to go ahead with
working on a solution or decide we are not going
to standardize a solution. another option is to
standardize two or more solution drafts as
experimental RFCs and see how it goes.

the wording in the proposed charter is vague. it
just says continue investigating (or something
like that) the route optimization problem.

Vijay

> 
>            jak
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vijay Devarapalli" 
> <[email-masked]>
>>>> correspond to the process: 00 WG draft selected by this time, WG

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 10:29:04 +0200

Hi James,

I would say that yes, the problem is well enough understood, there
exists solutions, and even implementations (e.g. based on SHISA). The
question is rather what RO we would like to do (between MNNs in the same
nested NEMO, between MNNs located in separated NEMO, or between the MNNs
and the infrastructure). I've also received personal comments that NEMO
RO is needed for deployment of RFC 3963 at a wide scale.

The wording of the new charter should be more explicit on RO -
Unfortunately I was not watching the mailing list during the March-April
time frame and the re-chartering discussion took me by surprise. I have
to manage time to propose some text on this.

To conclude, we do have the 2 drafts (RO Problem Statement and RO
solution space analysis). These drafts are providing good input for
deciding what is reasonable to do, so I would recommend everyone to read
them if it's not already done, and to take a look at the presentation
material from Vancouver. 

Thierry.

On Fri, 19 May 2006 10:45:36 -0700

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 12:39:24 +0300

El 22/05/2006, a las 11:29, Thierry Ernst escribió:

> question is rather what RO we would like to do

i agree with this

in particular i think we have saw during this charter discussion that  
there are different use cases that may or may not have different  
requirements for the RO solution, so, work is needed to characterize  
this scenarios and decide which solutions fits better for those.

so i agree that there are solutions that have been proposed that are  
well understood but more work is needed in the definition of the use  
cases. So i don't think this is reasearch and could perfectly be done  
here (however it may well  be the case that once we have characterized  
the use cases, none of the solutions we have provides the required  
features and we need to fall back to research mode to figure out a  
solution...)

Regards, marcelo

> (between MNNs in the same
>>>>> to
>>>>> The
>>>>>> that

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 04:29:37 -0700

I think it would be useful then to have a couple of concrete use cases. If 
these are not in the problem statement and solution space analysis, then I 
think it would be best to add them. It has  been a while since I took a look 
at these drafts, perhaps someone can post the file names or URLs so we can 
read them or are they already WG drafts?

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "marcelo bagnulo braun" <[email-masked]>
To: "Thierry Ernst" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 2:39 AM
Subject: Re: [nemo] NEMO RO on the charter

i agree with this

Regards, marcelo

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 14:35:58 +0300

actually, i think that the idea is to have independent drafts first in 
order to figure out how speific are the requirements for each case... i 
think that they are already working in the case for aviation 
requirements (there was a preliminary requirements list ported by Terry 
in the ml)

If the result is that the different requirements for the different use 
cases are somehow compatible then the idea would be to included them in 
the general nemo requirement draft. If they are very specific, we may 
well need separate drafts and even specific solutions for the different 
use cases...

(at least this is what i understood from the previous discussion on the 
ml so far...)

regards, marcelo

El 22/05/2006, a las 14:29, James Kempf escribió:

> I think it would be useful then to have a couple of concrete use 
> cases. If these are not in the problem statement and solution space 
> analysis, then I think it would be best to add them. It has  been a 
> while since I took a look at these drafts, perhaps someone can post 
> the file names or URLs so we can read them or are they already WG 
> drafts?
>
>            jak
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "marcelo bagnulo braun" 
> <[email-masked]>

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 04:46:32 -0700

Sounds fine.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "marcelo bagnulo braun" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thierry Ernst" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: [nemo] NEMO RO on the charter

regards, marcelo

El 22/05/2006, a las 14:29, James Kempf escribió:

> think it would be best to add them. It has  been a while since I took a 
> look at these drafts, perhaps someone can post the file names or URLs so 
> we can read them or are they already WG drafts?
>
>            jak
>

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:54:35 +0200

On Mon, 22 May 2006 04:29:37 -0700

> read them or are they already WG drafts?

They are WG document and as such are available on the NEMO WG charter
page. Note that these documents have reached WG last call and have been
/ are being sent to the IESG.

Thierry.

---

From: MARCELO BAGNULO BRAUN <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 20:06:30 +0200

here they are:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-02.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis-02.txt

regards, marcelo

-- 
----
MARCELO BAGNULO BRAUN
WebCartero
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid