Subject: RE: [nemo] Extensions to NEMOv4 base for the Charter.

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:59:25 -0700

Just to clarify one thing. The WG has already accepted the NEMOv4 base
solution as a working group item and as far as I understand the work on
that has progressed well and the draft will soon be ready for last call
etc. The current proposal for broadening the charter is about FA and
dynamic prefix allocation extensions to the Nemov4 base spec. 

The work is certainly not substantial enough to warrant a WG of its own
and a small, but determined :-), number of NEMO WG members have
expressed active interest in this topic. I also have to point out that
arguments against this work item (which have also been expressed) are
not technical in nature i.e., no one as far as I can tell says that what
we are suggesting is "wrong" or "technically flawed". Instead the
arguments are rather organizational e.g, the focus of the WG is IPv6 or
there are too many items on the agenda etc. 

George

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 1:09 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nemo] Extensions to NEMOv4 base for the Charter.
> 
> Trying to uplevel this discussion a bit...
> 
> I think the first thing the NEMO WG needs to decide on is whether the
WG
> should broaden out its topic area to include network mobility in
general.
> The first set of deliverables involved a network-mobility extension to
> MIPv6. Now, it seems like there are a few non-MIPv6 and even non-MIP
> approaches that people are interested in. For example, a routing-based
> approach would be appealing to customers such as Connexion. And, as
some
> have mentioned, a MIPv4 based approach might have some commercial
appeal.
> 
> There are pros and cons of broadening the topic area for a WG. The WG
> needs
> to make sure the right people are present, which might not be the
case,
> for
> example, if a routing approach is discussed and the WG has not history
of
> examining routing-based approaches. On the other hand, is there enough
> additional work involved in the current MIPv6-only approach to
continue a
> WG
> narrowly focussed on that topic area? It seems as if there are quite a
few
> yet on-going drafts that need to be completed for the MIPv6-only
approach,
> and the amount of new work that has been proposed in that vein is
actually
> quite minimal. Of that new work, there is some question whether one
item -
> route optimization - really falls under the MIPv6-based approach,
since
> route optimization for moving networks using the NEMO-base is still
not
> very
> well understood and is more of a research topic. Are there others?
> 
> Maybe now is too soon to conduct this kind of deep rechartering
> discussion.
> Perhaps the WG should wait until the current set of MIPv6-based
approach
> drafts are complete, then have the disucussion about whether to
broaden
> the
> topic area or keep it narrow.
> 
>             jak
> 
>

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:19:24 -0700

jak>> In a rechartering effort, arguments of an organizational nature are as 
helpful in getting a coherent charter as those of a technical nature. 
Developing a charter is, after all, and organizational effort.

jak>> But if the WG has efforts ongoing to standardize non-MIPv6-based 
solutions, and there are people who are committed to doing the work, then of 
course the work should continue.

            jak

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:16:17 +0200

Thanks for the "outside" comments James, this is surely helpful.

One detail, though, directed to George (and James regarding his comment
on the lack of technical discussion): the NEMOv4 work is informational,
this is a big difference with the NEMOv6 work, and there are reasons why
this document has been accepted as informational only. A direct
consequence of this document being informational is that it didn't raise
much debate on the technical side. If the document was in the proper
standard track, it's pretty sure that more debate would have occured on
the technical side.

Also, as I already pointed out, it was accepted a while ago to the
condition the workload put on the WG would be minimum (I'm not saying we
have to stick to this - I'm just recalling the history so that people
don't use the existing v4 work as a justification for more work - all
justification must be technical and about organizational priorities of
the WG). 

Thierry.

On Mon, 8 May 2006 11:19:24 -0700

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