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

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 07:40:58 -0700

TJ,

Since you agree IPv4-only work should be allowed, could you add a
sentence to indicate that the WG will work on FA support and dynamic
prefix allocation extensions to the NEMOv4 base solution? I will be
submitting a draft about these issues before the next meeting.

Thanks
George

> -----Original Message-----
> From: T.J. Kniveton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 1:05 PM
> To: Thierry Ernst
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nemo] Extensions to NEMOv4 base for the Charter.
> 
> 
> On May 4, 2006, at 7:16 AM, Thierry Ernst wrote:
> 
> > I have a subtle understanding of what the message should be, and it
is
> > valid in all organizations: been clear, not confusing, and well
> > documented. We cannot develop IPv4 and IPv6 protocols in the same
> > group
> > (unless, as I said, we are working on interoperability issues).
> 
> I would like to add one comment to this discussion. It seems
> appropriate to make a solution for IPv4-only networks, which
> thankfully is now underway. At some point it may make sense to form a
> separate working group for IPv4-only issues, but it's probably a bit
> too early to do that until the work is more mature, and the industry
> interest level and engineering participation within the IETF can be
> gauged.
> 
> For IPv4-IPv6 mixed networks, it makes sense to me that we continue
> to work on that issue here in this group (and in the Mobile IPv6
> working group).
> 
> I understand some people have no interest in working on IPv4-only
> protocols, and likewise some people in NEMO probably have little or
> no interest in IPv6-only protocols. But in a mixed network, we should
> have something to say about how NEMO will work. After all, that
> scenario is a growth industry.
> 
> TJ
>

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:57:09 +0200

I'm not sure we **agree** (as a WG) on IPv4-only work; actually the
debate was open with mixed positions on both IPv4-only tasks accepted vs
IPv4-only tasks not accepted, with a 3rd possibility that IPv4-IPv6
transition mechanisms would suffice to do what is the most needed.

Also, someone pointed that we should better complete the current work
and decide for a re-chartering a bit later in the year. I agree with
this suggestion, and we could discuss the rechartering a bit further
during next or next-next IETF meeting.

So, my proposition would be to postpone the new charter.

Thierry.

On Tue, 16 May 2006 07:40:58 -0700

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:22:25 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> debate was open with mixed positions on both IPv4-only tasks accepted
>  vs IPv4-only tasks not accepted, with a 3rd possibility that 
> IPv4-IPv6 transition mechanisms would suffice to do what is the most 
> needed.
> 

I don't get it... Are you proposing we work on the Charter now and apply
it later this year?

We've been discussing new Charter extensively.  Should we stop
discussing Charter?

Alex

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:24:07 -0700

> submitting a draft about these issues before the next meeting.

from what I saw, most people were *not* interested
in taking up new items related to IPv4-only work.

Vijay

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:43:37 +0200

On Tue, 16 May 2006 17:22:25 +0200

> We've been discussing new Charter extensively.  Should we stop

Discussion is fine, but IMHO agreeing and sending a new charter to the
IESG is too early at this point of time since there are divergent point
of views on what we should do or not.  I would rather see this really
happening for next-next IETF (November). In the meantime, we can discuss
the deployment requirements (see the other thread) so that we really
know what is needed.

Thierry.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:34:40 -0700

> the deployment requirements (see the other thread) so that we really

I don't think it is a good idea to put off re-chartering
for this long. you can infact re-charter once more in
November if you want once we have a clearer picture of
what solutions are needed. working on the requirements
could be part of the new charter and we can send the
charter to the IESG right away. we shouldn't let other
items  proposed items in the charter suffer because we
want to gather "deployment requirements".

Vijay

---

From: Masafumi Watari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 19:55:19 +0900

> want to gather "deployment requirements".

I agree.  I think we could recharter now with work on the requirements,
and leave other work on solutions for later rechartering.

watari

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 20:18:43 +0900

I agree, too.
We should proceed this re-charter right away.

I have a question on IPv4 only work.
Are there any ID for FA support and prefix allocation?
I only saw the discussion whether we need these or not, but not  
requirements, solutions, i.e. technical stuff.
IPv4 folks can work on this in NEMO WG  and chairs and WG can decide  
whether we really need this specification as RFC in this WG, later.
If there are only a few arguments on this IPv4 related stuff, maybe  
these items should be discussed in MIP4 or IPv4-NEMO WG.

regards,
ryuji

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:49:02 +0200

Masafumi Watari wrote:
>>> Discussion is fine, but IMHO agreeing and sending a new charter 
>>> to the IESG is too early at this point of time since there are 
>>> divergent point of views on what we should do or not.  I would 
>>> rather see this really happening for next-next IETF (November). 
>>> In the meantime, we can discuss the deployment requirements (see 
>>> the other thread) so that we really know what is needed.
>> 
>> I don't think it is a good idea to put off re-chartering for this 
>> long. you can infact re-charter once more in November if you want 
>> once we have a clearer picture of what solutions are needed. 
>> working on the requirements could be part of the new charter and we
>>  can send the charter to the IESG right away. we shouldn't let 
>> other items  proposed items in the charter suffer because we want 
>> to gather "deployment requirements".
> 
> I agree.  I think we could recharter now with work on the 
> requirements, and leave other work on solutions for later 
> rechartering.

One of the customers for vehicular-like industry I work for cares a lot
about IPv4.  It is for vehicles used in emergency situations.  A little
bit like the aviation industry, this is equipment deployed, tried,
tested and proved for years, in sun rain fire.  Any modification to it
is happening very slowly.  IPv6 _is_ in the roadmaps but for now just
use IPv4 modifications, and not very many :-)  It's much easier to
incrementally upgrade such a network from IPv4 to NEMOv4 than is to
upgrade every IP-addressable entity to IPv6 and then to NEMOv6.

Maybe this IPv4 aspect from vehicular industry could be taken into
account by the deployment requirements.

Other vehicular industry one sees in many places today is the rental
limousines offering wifi in the car.  It's v4.  Trains offering wifi to
passengers.  It's v4.  Even Columbia in space used Mobile IPv4, not v6.

That said, I am far from opposing IPv6 work on network mobility, I
strongly support it too.

Alex

---

From: Masafumi Watari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 21:12:29 +0900

On 2006/05/18 20:49, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>> Discussion is fine, but IMHO agreeing and sending a new charter to 
>>>> the IESG is too early at this point of time since there are 
>>>> rather see this really happening for next-next IETF (November). In 
>>>> the meantime, we can discuss the deployment requirements (see the 
>>>> other thread) so that we really know what is needed.
>>>
>>> once we have a clearer picture of what solutions are needed. working 
>>> on the requirements could be part of the new charter and we
>>>  can send the charter to the IESG right away. we shouldn't let other 
>>> items  proposed items in the charter suffer because we want to gather 
>>> "deployment requirements".
>>
>> requirements, and leave other work on solutions for later rechartering.
> 

So you are speaking for requirements on deploying NEMOv4, right?
I think we need to be clear when we say "deployment requirements."

> That said, I am far from opposing IPv6 work on network mobility, I

You mean opposing IPv4?  I'm confused :(

watari

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:27:19 +0200

Masafumi Watari wrote:
>>>>> Discussion is fine, but IMHO agreeing and sending a new 
>>>>> charter to the IESG is too early at this point of time since
>>>>>  there are divergent point of views on what we should do or 
>>>>> not.  I would rather see this really happening for next-next
>>>>>  IETF (November). In the meantime, we can discuss the 
>>>>> deployment requirements (see the other thread) so that we 
>>>>> really know what is needed.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think it is a good idea to put off re-chartering for 
>>>> this long. you can infact re-charter once more in November if 
>>>> you want once we have a clearer picture of what solutions are 
>>>> needed. working on the requirements could be part of the new 
>>>> charter and we can send the charter to the IESG right away. we
>>>>  shouldn't let other items  proposed items in the charter
>>>> suffer because we want to gather "deployment requirements".
>>> 
>> One of the customers for vehicular-like industry I work for cares a
>>  lot about IPv4.  It is for vehicles used in emergency situations.
>>  A little bit like the aviation industry, this is equipment 
>> deployed, tried, tested and proved for years, in sun rain fire. Any
>>  modification to it is happening very slowly.  IPv6 _is_ in the 
>> roadmaps but for now just use IPv4 modifications, and not very many
>>  :-)  It's much easier to incrementally upgrade such a network from
>>  IPv4 to NEMOv4 than is to upgrade every IP-addressable entity to 
>> IPv6 and then to NEMOv6.
>> 
> So you are speaking for requirements on deploying NEMOv4, right? I 
> think we need to be clear when we say "deployment requirements."

YEs, I agree we should be clear on what "deployment requirements" means.
  I think we can't write a document requiring deployments to, for
example, use IPv6 and DS-MIPv6 and not IPv4.  IETF documents are not
requirements to hand down to deployers.  There may be requirements (or
better said "goals") for a protocol design to achieve, but not requiring
people to deploy something.

What do you think this "deployment requirements" should be?

>> Other vehicular industry one sees in many places today is the 
>> rental limousines offering wifi in the car.  It's v4.  Trains 
>> offering wifi to passengers.  It's v4.  Even Columbia in space used
>>  Mobile IPv4, not v6.
>> 

I support both IPv4 _and_ IPv6 work.  I support basic NEMOv6, basic
NEMOv4 and DS-MIPv6 work.  Pushing for IPv4 does not mean I oppose work
on IPv6.  How about you?

I am confused by the assumption that supporting IPv4 work is interpreted
as rejecting IPv6 work.

Look at DNS - it's v4 and v6.  Can be queried in v4 for v6 results and
in v6 for v4 results.  Can run as v6-exclusively or v4-exclusively.

Alex

---

From: Masafumi Watari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:03:43 +0900

On 2006/05/18 21:27, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>>>> the IESG is too early at this point of time since
>>>>>>  there are divergent point of views on what we should do or not.  
>>>>>> I would rather see this really happening for next-next
>>>>>>  IETF (November). In the meantime, we can discuss the deployment 
>>>>>> requirements (see the other thread) so that we really know what is 
>>>>>> needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> can send the charter to the IESG right away. we
>>>  A little bit like the aviation industry, this is equipment deployed, 
>>> tried, tested and proved for years, in sun rain fire. Any

Alex, that wasn't what I meant, and I think we are on the same rail.  If
the requirement from the industry is a need for a pure IPv4 NEMO, then
sure we could write one.  But I don't think that fits the original goal
of this WG.

>>> limousines offering wifi in the car.  It's v4.  Trains offering wifi 
>>> to passengers.  It's v4.  Even Columbia in space used
>>>  Mobile IPv4, not v6.
>>>

I support IPv6, but that does not mean I oppose IPv4 either.

> I am confused by the assumption that supporting IPv4 work is interpreted

Just to be clear, I didn't mean that.

watari

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 01:13:33 +0900

Hi Alex

On 2006/05/18, at 20:49, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> lot

You have NEMOv4 for this requirement, right??
Above requirement can fulfill with NEMOv4. I knew dynamic  
configuration can not be made, but
this WG has several topics related to NEMO BS and we have to  
prioritize items.
Remember there were few comments to NEMOv4 spec on this ML.

ryuji

ryuji

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 18:50:44 +0200

Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
>>>> shouldn't let other items  proposed items in the charter suffer
>>>> because we want to gather "deployment requirements".

I think you meant NEMOv6 - right we have NEMOv6 for that requirement.
But I think there is a number of comments that were sent on NEMOv6 base
spec, most are simple to deal with, some editorial errors too.  I
consider this NEMOv6 work.

I also consider NEMOv6 work to be the prefix delegation from HA to MR
with DHCPv6 or MIP6 (to be decided).  And I support this too.

> Above requirement can fulfill with NEMOv4.

Yes, v4 requirements from vehicular and aviation industry can be
fulfilled with the NEMOv4 spec.

> I knew dynamic configuration can not be made, but this WG has several
>  topics related to NEMO BS and we have to prioritize items. Remember 
> there were few comments to NEMOv4 spec on this ML.

I agree.  Do you have your own preference for prioritization?  What
would that be?

Alex