Subject: RE: [nemo] Usage Requirement - Personal Mobile Router

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:09:49 +0100

I agree with Thierry. 

We have been working with the automotive industry for years and my
feeling is that they are moving slowing and are not ready yet. The
business model is unclear, and cost of goods is too high for now. So
it's all evaluation and reflection for a number of years to come. 

The automotive year is an order of magnitude longer than the calendar
one. That is 2 orders of magnitude from the Internet year... Please
someone from automotive answer and prove me wrong. The Home Gateway
industry, for instance, deploys IP much more actively than in the
automotive industry these days, and NEMO with MIPTRANS could be a viable
alternate to softwires to bring a permanent IPv6 network at home.

The plane industry is certainly interesting. They have proven their
willingness to move forward, try and deploy things. OTOH, they seem to
have a satisfying answer with BGP for the short term, and the scale of
deployment is too narrow for others than niche companies to make
specific developments.

Finally, we see an explosion of handheld devices (palms, phones, i-pods,
medical sensors) which would largely benefit from always on, shared
connectivity from a Personal Mobile Router. There are immediate and
present needs with a clearer problem to solve.

Pascal

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thierry Ernst [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:43 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [nemo] Usage Requirement - Personal Mobile Router
>
>
>Hi,
>
>But then, I would start with the PMR use case, not the automotive use
>case. People from the automotive industry are not yet involved within
>the IETF, hopefully they would soon (I got good signs and feedback from
>related industries), but they don't have the IETF insight. For the PMR
>use case, many people on the list used to IETF process have said they
>are willing to collect the requirements. I'm sure they will in a very
>efficient way. In addition, (some people from) the automotive industry
>(e.g. ISO TC204 WG 16's CALM protocol architecture, or the Car-to-Car
>Communication Consortium) right now is more trying to figure out where
>exactly IPv6 would fit in (not as opposed with IPv4: there is a clear
>indication from them that IPv4 is no-go). Their list of requirements
>would rather embrace the entire set of IPv6 protocols instead of being
>NEMO-specific. There would obviously be some MANET and NEMO there
>(MANEMO), but not only.
>
>The aviation industry case is another story. We already have commitment
>from NASA and Boeing, but I don't see in the short term this use case
>involving more people that we presently have. And this would take years
>to be deployed, whereas the PMR use case could be quite quickly.
>
>So, leaving PMR out is like cutting our own feets. If this is a
strategy
>to make sure the work as specified in the charter is not done,
>dismissing PMR is surely the right thing to do.
>
>Thierry.
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:54:18 +0200
>Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>Vidya,
>>> To this effect, are we adding the PMR needs as a category to collect
>>> requirements from?
>>>
>>I would rather start from a small set of
>>areas to collect requirements from, and
>>then add more later as we have progressed
>>with the first ones. I know this isn't optimized
>>from the point of view of getting one solution
>>that covers many needs. However, I think we
>>need focus on concrete cases with tangible
>>benefits to deployment more than we need
>>a universal solution in this case.
>>
>>--Jari
>>
>>

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:00:13 -0800

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> feeling is that they are moving slowing and are not ready yet.
The issue here is that our working group is also moving slowly, and it's 
time to finish the rechartering work. We have a choice to make - either 
move forward with some charter we agree on, or continue discussing what 
should be on the charter

As the leader of the rechartering process, it's my job to make sure that 
we come to an acceptable result within a reasonable time. We have 
already spent a very long time discussing this, which is OK because it 
led to getting everyone's input.

At this point, I suggest that we accept Jari's proposal to move forward 
with the charter we have, and at the same time investigate what type of 
route optimization is needed to fix problems that are being seen in PMR 
deployments. If some WG members produce a draft that describe what these 
deployment issues are for PMR implementations, and how we can address 
them, I think we would have a much easier time convincing the IESG that 
we should be chartered to do that work.

How does this sound?

TJ

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:41:15 -0800

T.J. Kniveton wrote:
>
> At this point, I suggest that we accept Jari's proposal to move 
> forward with the charter we have, and at the same time investigate 
> what type of route optimization is needed to fix problems that are 
> being seen in PMR deployments. If some WG members produce a draft that 
> describe what these deployment issues are for PMR implementations, and 
> how we can address them, I think we would have a much easier time 
> convincing the IESG that we should be chartered to do that work.
>
> How does this sound?
Hi,

Happy Holidays to everyone.

I haven't heard any comments on this yet. It might be delayed because of 
the holidays, but if anyone has anything to say, please comment within 
the next day. If no comments are received, we'll move forward according 
to Jari's plan.

Thanks,
TJ

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:59:44 +0100

Hi all,

> we should be chartered to do that work.

It sounds fine to me. Although I support adding the PMR to the charter,
I think Jari's proposal is a good intermediate approach. IMHO it's very
important to move forward in the re-chartering process.

My two cents.

Kind Regards,

Carlos J.

-- 
¡ASÓCIATE! Gratis para estudiantes  http://www.telematica.ws
 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
 GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A  4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:02:33 -0500

Hello;

On Dec 26, 2006, at 11:41 AM, T.J. Kniveton wrote:

>> being seen in PMR deployments. If some WG members produce a draft  
>> that describe what these deployment issues are for PMR  
>> implementations, and how we can address them, I think we would  
>> have a much easier time convincing the IESG that we should be  
>> chartered to do that work.
>>
>> How does this sound?
> Hi,
>
> I haven't heard any comments on this yet. It might be delayed  
> because of the holidays, but if anyone has anything to say, please  
> comment within the next day. If no comments are received, we'll  
> move forward according to Jari's plan.
>
> Thanks,
> TJ

I would support moving forward with this Jari's proposal, assuming  
that the proposed charter text is

http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/charter2_5.txt  .

Nits on that text :

s/accomodate/accommodate

s/signalling/signaling

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:25:57 -0800

On Dec 26, 2006, at 10:02 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

>>> forward with the charter we have, and at the same time  
>>> investigate what type of route optimization is needed to fix  
>>> problems that are being seen in PMR deployments. If some WG  
>>> members produce a draft that describe what these deployment  
>>> issues are for PMR implementations, and how we can address them,  
>>> I think we would have a much easier time convincing the IESG that  
Thanks for your comment.

> s/accomodate/accommodate
fixed.
> s/signalling/signaling
Can be spelled either way but I fixed it toward your preferred spelling.

TJ