Subject: RE: RO for geographically dist'd HAs (was: [nemo] Charter update, continued)

From: "Eranga Perera" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:59:50 +1000

As for opinions from actual users of RO solutions would be good. However, if such comments are not forthcoming, then I don't think it is a too difficult task to come up with realistic scenarios and requirements. 

The point is by only rechartering for handling geographically distributed HAs, other cases can not be voiced at all. 

-eranga

> -----Original Message-----

> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:[email-masked]]

> Sent: Monday, 25 September 2006 6:37 PM

> To: Eranga Perera

> Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; ml-nemo WG; T.J. Kniveton

> Subject: Re: RO for geographically dist'd HAs (was: [nemo] Charter

> update,continued)

> El 25/09/2006, a las 10:25, Eranga Perera escribió:

> > Marcelo,

> > I fully agree with your suggestion. This way everyone will get a

> > chance to voice out what they think needs addressing within the scope

> > of RO.

> a subtle point here, i would prefer to hear from actual potential users

> of the RO solutions (like the people from the aviation or car industry

> or others) rather than random opinions about what different apporach

> should be better in the abstract

> i mean, what i would think is that way forward, i to get the potential

> users, like aviation or car industry, to define their problem and the

> requirements in an draft and then based on this define solutions for

> the identified problems

> that i what i think should be in the charter, itmes to produce

> scenarrios and requiremets for RO

> Regards, marcelo

> > Cheers,

> > Eranga

> >> -----Original Message-----

> >> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:[email-masked]]

> >> Sent: Monday, 25 September 2006 6:16 PM

> >> To: Alexandru Petrescu

> >> Cc: ml-nemo WG; T.J. Kniveton

> >> Subject: Re: RO for geographically dist'd HAs (was: [nemo] Charter

> >> update,continued)

> >> My understanding of the comments in the last meeting was that we were

> >> going _first_ to identify what are the relevant scenarios for which we

> >> need to design RO solutions and their requirements and only _after_

> >> that we are going to work in actual solutions.

> >> I mean, my recollection of Thierry's suggestion was to have a first

> >> rechartering where we include items about identifying relevant

> >> scenarios and requirements for RO and when this is done a new

> >> recharter, to include the design of solutions for the identified

> >> scenarios

> >> As i previously mentioned here, i think it is very hard to evaluate

> >> how

> >> approapriate a solution is if we don't have explicitly fleshed out

> >> what

> >> the problem and requiremnets are

> >> So i would suggest to remove the item

> >> Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization for geographically distributed

> >> HAs

> >> And to include an item about providing a new ID -00 about identifying

> >> scenarios and requirements for RO

> >> Regards, marcelo

> >> El 22/09/2006, a las 11:34, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:

> >>> T.J. Kniveton wrote:

> >>>> Hi folks, I'm back..

> >>>> Here is the current version of the charter. I am still making

> >>>> changes, and need to modify the milestones section. But wanted to

> >>>> share what's there now and see if there are any comments.

> >>>> Please send comments directly to me, for the moment, and when I have

> >>>> the next version we can discuss it on the list.

> >>>> http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/charter2_3.txt

> >>> Another remark on the Charter2_3.  It has an item:

> >>> "??? 2006         Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization for

> >>>                   geographically distributed HAs"

> >>> However, this is not currently a WG item (so can't be considered as

> >>> "finishing ongoing WG documents") and has no other textual

> >>> description

> >>> in charter2_3.  What is it about?  Is it

> >>> draft-wakikawa-mip6-nemo-haha-01.txt or

> >>> draft-wakikawa-mip6-nemo-haha-spec-00?

> >>> We've had a long discussion previously about the need and feasibility

> >>> of

> >>>  HAHA protocols.  There may have been many conclusions, I don't

> >>> remember

> >>> all.

> >>> Alex

> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> > ---

> > This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain

> > legally

> > privileged information or copyright material. You should not read,

> > copy,

> > use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended

> > recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete

> > both

> > messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,

> > data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or

> > unauthorised

> > amendment. This notice should not be removed.

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:32:23 +0200

I am afraid i disagree completelly,

I we cannot find users for the RO solutions we shouldn't be working on  
this and we should close the wg until a real problem is identified.

defining solution when we don't have any users that need it, makes no  
sense to me

potential users are the ones that define the problem and provide  
requirements, not merely opinions.

Regards, marcelo

El 25/09/2006, a las 10:59, Eranga Perera escribió:

>
>  
> As for opinions from actual users of RO solutions would be good.  
> However, if such comments are not forthcoming, then I don't think it  
> is a too difficult task to come up with realistic scenarios and  
> requirements.
>  
> The point is by only rechartering for handling geographically  
> distributed HAs, other cases can not be voiced at all.
>  
> -eranga
>  
>  
>

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:51:47 +0800

Hello all,

I have to disagree on the part of problem definition.  The problem has
already been defined.  The WG has already produced a problem statement
draft which has passed WGLC.

What is missing, which I do agree, is real requirements.  Requirements
such as the acceptable signaling overhead, whether the MNNs should be
aware of the network mobility, whether the MNNs can implement new
functionalities to support a RO solution, etc.

Now the car industry may have a set of requirements, the aviation
industry may have another set, and the digital broadcast industry may
have yet another set.  If the world was a prefect ideal one, a single
solution would suffice to solve the problem of route optimization and
fulfill all requirements.  Alas such a world doesn't exist.

So, we do the next best thing.  We have different types of solution
catered for different set of requirements.  Selection of the approach
can be based on the solution space analysis that the WG has produced.

But first, we need to get those requirements.  

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:03:45 +0200

> draft which has passed WGLC.

you are right of course

by problem i was meaning specific problems of the different real cases,  
since as you mention, the problem space identifed in the RO pb  
statement draft is simply to wide and many solutions fit as solutions  
to this problem

> But first, we need to get those requirements.

exactly,

before discussing any solution we need to find real application cases  
and determine thier requirements

only then we can start talking about solutions, because without these  
use cases and requirements we cannot compare evaluate the ddifferent  
proposals that are around.

Do we agree that identifying use cases and requirements is not a nice  
to have step but we must do this before start working on solutions?

regards, marcelo

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:08:39 +0800

> to have step but we must do this before start working on solutions?

This I agree ... but haven't Thierry already collected some information
from different industries?  He presented them in Montreal. I think all
we need is to document them in an Internet draft, circulate the draft
around the various concerned industries to review the documented
requirements.  (I think waiting for busy people from these industries to
produce a draft on their own would take a long long time.  It is better
someone write it for them).

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:20:24 +0200

> someone write it for them).
Of course i don't have any problem with who is the editor of such 
documents

Just want to be sure that those reflect real problems of real use cases 
and that we are working in a solution that has potential users. So i 
agree that the people from the industry that will use the solution 
don't need to be the editors of the requirements and use cases draft, a 
heavy involvment from their part is required in order to be sure that 
this is what is needed. But i think we do have this here in the wg, 
since several people from the aviation industry has been involved in 
the discusssions and people from the car industry has also send some 
emails. Their participation is critical for the usefulness of the 
outcome of the work done here.

so, imho we need a use case descrption and requirements for RO and real 
users must be involved in the definition of these docuemtns and this is 
a required before moving into the solution space

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:27:59 -0400

Hello;

>> El 25/09/2006, a las 11:51, Chan-Wah Ng escribió:
<snip>
> someone write it for them).

Was this a presentation ? Is it available somewhere ? I don't see it  
in the proceedings -
or is just the lists on pages 13-14-15 of
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/nemo-0.pdf ?

Regards
Marshall

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:38:13 +0200

> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/nemo-0.pdf ?

i guess this is it

but there was also a nice email with requirements from the aviation 
industry from Terry Davis from Boeing, but i guess they never put it as 
an ID :-(

the original message is 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nemo/current/msg03299.html

regards, marcelo

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:41:06 +0200

Chan-Wah Ng wrote:
> from different industries?  He presented them in Montreal.

Yes, it's at
http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/ietf66/nemo-ietf66-slides.pdf
pp 12-15

Alex

---

From: "Davis, Terry L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:04:22 -0700

Marcelo

Any of the future communication systems for globally mobile systems (like aircraft and ships) that use satellites and multiple ground stations must have RO!  This will be especially true if future air traffic control systems use IP as we expect.  

Take care
Terry

> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 2:32 AM
> To: Eranga Perera
> Cc: ml-nemo WG; T.J. Kniveton; Alexandru Petrescu

---

From: "Davis, Terry L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:07:18 -0700

Marcelo

Two documents from the aviation industry should be available in drafts this week.  A requirements document and a problem statement.  I will post the links when they are available.

Take care
Terry

> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 5:20 AM
> To: Chan-Wah Ng
> Cc: ml-nemo WG; Eranga Perera; T.J. Kniveton; Alexandru Petrescu

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:12:46 +0200

Terry,

El 25/09/2006, a las 16:04, Davis, Terry L escribió:

> Marcelo
>
> Any of the future communication systems for globally mobile systems  
> (like aircraft and ships) that use satellites and multiple ground  
> stations must have RO!

i compeltelly agree with this

my only point is that before working on a solution, we need the  
potential users to flesh out the requirements, so we can design a  
proper soltion. If not, we may define a solution that does not solve  
your problems and also it will be very hard to choose among the dozens  
of proposed solutions that are around

so, i am looking forward to work in this problem, just want to have a  
clear problem definition for the particular cases and their  
requirements

So, i don't think we disagree here...

Regards, marcelo

>   This will be especially true if future air traffic control systems  
> use IP as we expect.
>
> Take care
> Terry
>

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:14:19 +0200

Great, this is what i looking for

i hope we can put an explicit charter item for this documents (yours or 
similar ones if many are available, but i doubt it)

Regards, marcelo

El 25/09/2006, a las 16:07, Davis, Terry L escribió:

> Marcelo
>
> Two documents from the aviation industry should be available in drafts 
> this week.  A requirements document and a problem statement.  I will 
> post the links when they are available.
>
> Take care
> Terry
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:41:06 +0200

Yes, it's at

Alex

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:13:30 -0400

On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:41 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

>>> by problem i was meaning specific problems of the different real  
>>> cases,  since as you mention, the problem space identifed in the  
>>> RO pb  statement draft is simply to wide and many solutions fit  
>>> as solutions  to this problem
>>>
>>> before discussing any solution we need to find real application  
>>> cases  and determine thier requirements
>>>
>>> only then we can start talking about solutions, because without  
>>> these  use cases and requirements we cannot compare evaluate the  
>>> ddifferent  proposals that are around.
>>>
>>> Do we agree that identifying use cases and requirements is not a  
>>> nice  to have step but we must do this before start working on  
>>> solutions?
>>>

Which, BTW, are the same as
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/nemo-0.pdf

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:33:16 -0400

On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:38 AM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

>>>> these
>>>> nice
>> Was this a presentation ? Is it available somewhere ? I don't see  
>> it in the proceedings -
> industry from Terry Davis from Boeing, but i guess they never put  
> it as an ID :-(

It's coming...

>
> the original message is http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nemo/ 
> current/msg03299.html
>
> regards, marcelo
>
>
>>
>> Regards
>> Marshall
>

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:23:52 -0700

I agree. I think it would be worthwhile identifying actual customers for RO 
before putting it in the charter.

If there is work that needs to be done in advance of any actual need, I 
think that it could be done in IRTF, perhaps in the MOBOPTS RG.

        jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "marcelo bagnulo braun" <[email-masked]>
To: "Eranga Perera" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "ml-nemo WG" <[email-masked]>; "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>; 
"Alexandru Petrescu" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: RO for geographically dist'd HAs (was: [nemo] Charter 
update,continued)

Regards, marcelo

El 25/09/2006, a las 10:59, Eranga Perera escribió:

>
>
> As for opinions from actual users of RO solutions would be good.  However, 
> if such comments are not forthcoming, then I don't think it  is a too 
> difficult task to come up with realistic scenarios and  requirements.
>
> The point is by only rechartering for handling geographically  distributed 
> HAs, other cases can not be voiced at all.
>
> -eranga
>
>
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:08:17 +0200

Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> industry from Terry Davis from Boeing, but i guess they never put it 
>> as an ID :-(
> 
> It's coming...

What happened to MPI pre-bar-bof?  Any relationship to what we should 
expecte here?
http://www.arkko.com/publications/ietf-67/mpi/draft-ivancic-mobile-platforms-problem-00.txt
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki

Alex