Subject: [grobj] Referrals problem statement at IETF 79

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:07:20 +1300

I presented the draft Problem Statement for Referral
<draft-carpenter-referral-ps-01.txt> by myself, Sheng Jiang, and
Bo Zhou (departing author) and Zhen Cao (new author, ChinaMobile),
three times: in the two open meetings for the Applications and
Transport Areas, and in the Name Based Sockets (NBS) BOF.

There was significant interest and feedback in the APPAREA meeting,
with comments that we had identified an important problem but perhaps
not the correct direction for a solution. There was feedback that
applications people also want a solution to the path selection problem
(in other words, the network layer should fix the mess it's made over
the last 15 years with NATs and two versions of IP).

In the TSVAREA meeting, there was some positive discussion and agreement
that the problem statement should be further developed.

There was less feedback in the NBS BOF. It seems to me that the NBS
proposers are understimating the issues that they face once referral
and separate addressing scopes are present. But there is a similar
message that connectivity should be provided by some code under the
application layer, not by heuristics in every separate application.

I hope that some people from those three audiences will join
the discussion of the problem statement here.

-- 
Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 20:53:52 +0800

> Transport Areas, and in the Name Based Sockets (NBS) BOF.

Thanks Brian for the hard work.

> the last 15 years with NATs and two versions of IP).

I guess we are in very early stage of designing the solution. We would 
like to hear any suggestion. We are welcome to the requirements from 
application side. I guess only after we clearly describe the problems we 
need to solve, we can decide with direction we may go.

> that the problem statement should be further developed.

We are working on the problem statement, for sure. But at the same time, 
we (or IETF) should decide which area this work should be hold. 
Personally, I think this is work in transport layer which serves 
applications eventually. So, it should stay in transport area, but 
requiring application people to be deeply involved.

Regards,

Sheng

---

From: Shane Amante <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 06:41:33 -0700

Hi Brian,

> the last 15 years with NATs and two versions of IP).

I wasn't able to attend your presentation in APPAREA, (but, did it at 
other IETF's and the NBS BoF this time around).  Can you elaborate a bit 
more on "want a solution to the path selection problem"?  Specifically, 
are the APPAREA folks aware of or concerned about source & destination 
address selection in IPv6 as per RFC 3484, or 
draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-01?  Or, something (much) more complicated?

Thanks,

-shane

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:27:36 +1300

Shane,

> draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-01?  Or, something (much) more complicated?

I think "something more complicated" is the answer, which is where I
see a relationship with NBS, the "happy eyeballs" draft
(draft-wing-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-ipv6-01), and with
draft-baker-v6ops-session-start-time-02.

Of course we must fix RFC3484 anyway.

Anyway, I have sent a reminder of the existence of the GROBJ list to
the APP and TSV area lists and to the NBS BOF list. I hope those
interested will join us here.