Subject: [DMM] Going forward with the DMM work items

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:51:54 +0300

Folks,

In the interim call #2 we agreed to form "working teams". We got three 
volunteers to run up those:

o Alper will take care of coordinating "exposing mobility state.."
o Anthony will take care of coordinating "enhanced mobility anchoring.."
o Marco will take care of coordinating "forwarding path and signaling.."

The above gentlement will arrange calls for brainstorming that are open 
for everyone to participate. The process is open - about equivalent to a 
design team, you just don't need to signup for one. Just keep in mind 
that it is good to concentrate on a limited amount of work items.

The working teams, if they so manage, will produce the solution I-D(s). 
These documents will be equivalent to any individual produced I-D, though.

- Jouni & Dapeng

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 10:14:26 -0500

Hi Jouni,

I don't see anything in the charter regarding the design teams or
"working teams". I also mentioned this in the list and there was no
objection.

On what basis you are forming the working teams?

We currently have many solution drafts and I can not see any of them
dividing the solution as exposing mobility state, enhanced mobility
anchoring or forwarding path and signaling.

These three items were mentioned by certain people which I believe do
not constitute the consensus in DMM. Yes the charter had those but my
interpretation was it was for the purpose of abstracting the solution
into some pieces. I have never interpreted them to be the requirements
to divide the final DMM protocol like this.

My question is we do that three four solution drafts and some of them
implemented.
What do we do with them?

My advice to those colleagues wishing to lead the design teams is to
please come up with your own solution and get into the race with
others.
How come they can get the hat of DT lead and produce something and get
priority over others who worked so hard?

Regards,

Behcet

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The above gentlement will arrange calls for brainstorming that are open for
> everyone to participate. The process is open - about equivalent to a design
> team, you just don't need to signup for one. Just keep in mind that it is
> good to concentrate on a limited amount of work items.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:22:26 -0400

> My question is we do that three four solution drafts and some of them

My expectation, as AD, is that the WG will assess the drafts presented
by these teams for adoption.  People's opinion of those drafts should
not be influenced by the fact they were written by a team.

> please come up with your own solution and get into the race with

Race?

> priority over others who worked so hard?

First of all, the chairs are well within their right to appoint DT
leads.  They could have appointed all the other slots on the DT as well,
but chose to ask for volunteers.

I do not see anything in Jouni's note that indicates that a team's
output gets any preferential treatment.  The rules of the IETF prevent that.

To re-enforce Jouni's last sentence...

>> These documents will be equivalent to any individual produced I-D, though.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:22:16 -0500

Hi Brian,

You deleted maybe by mistake the first three paragraphs of my previous mail.

Let me add to those one more point:

Previously mobility groups in IETF produced single protocols like
Mobile IP or Proxy Mobile IP.
These protocols have seen some operator adoption, of course not much but some.
This time we will be asking the operators to adopt exposing mobility
state protocol, enhanced mobility anchoring protocol and forwarding
path and signaling protocol (maybe forwarding path protocol and
signaling protocol)l.
And maybe deployment models protocol which was in the charter but
somehow got dropped.
How is that going to happen?

Anyway these are my concerns, I could not attend Interim call #2, I
believe many people could not including Jouni.
People should speak up, otherwise it appears like it is only my issue.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 19:34:41 +0000

Hi Behcet,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 12:22 PM
> To: Brian Haberman
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Going forward with the DMM work items
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 

Jouni was able to attend the call. I was on the call and asked the
question as to whether non-MIPv6/PMIPv6 solutions could be considered
and the answer I got (I think from Jouni) was "possibly".

> People should speak up, otherwise it appears like it is only my issue.

AERO is a solution alternative that I would like to see taken under
wider consideration within this domain. I think that is starting to
happen through some of the recent list discussions, so others on the
list should now be coming aware of it. I also plan to attend IETF91
where I would ask for another AERO presentation timeslot if it would
please the wg and the chairs.

So, it seems to me that I am already doing all I can. Do you think
I should be doing more?

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:50:12 -0500

Hi Fred,

>> How is that going to happen?

Do you plan to divide your solution into

exposing mobility state protocol,
enhanced mobility anchoring protocol.
 forwarding path protocol
signaling protocol ?

That is the way things are going.
Otherwise you are off track.

> So, it seems to me that I am already doing all I can. Do you think

I think you are trying to push your own solution and you think that
you are effective in it.

I think DMM should see the big picture and everybody, including Ryuji,
Satoru and others should speak up.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:34:56 +0000

Hi Behcet,

> From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 8:50 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Brian Haberman; [email-masked]

All of these things I think have areas of overlap with aspects
of the AERO proposal.

> Otherwise you are off track.

I think the best I can do is represent the AERO proposal and speak
to the areas where there is overlap. I think we have already
established that AERO solves the tunnel MTU problem and that has
applicability outside of just AERO. I am also feeding some of my
correspondent capability discovery ideas to Alper and that again
has wider applicability. The AERO NBMA model is being discussed
in relation to the MIP/PMIP point-to-point model. Signaling based
on plain old DHCPv6 and IPv6ND instead of specialized Mobility
Headers has also been discussed.

So, maybe I'm not seeing the forest for the trees but if you
think I am off track what am I supposed to do about it? Complain,
or continue to conduct a productive investigation as I am already
doing?

> I think you are trying to push your own solution

I am conducting an investigation. Others have joined me in a friendly
exchange of ideas. Is it the wrong approach?

> and you think that you are effective in it.

Which means that you think I am not effective in it?

> Satoru and others should speak up.

Sure, it would be good to hear from them. I have already specified
a BGP-based distributed mobility management scheme in both the AERO
spec and earlier in RFC6179. (I have read their draft; I have no way
of knowing whether they have read my documents.)

Thanks - Fred