Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:09:11 +0100

Hi folks,

Following the procedure we described for the rechartering process,
we will open now a 10 day period (which can be extended if the  
discussion needs it)
for you to discuss the merits and the needs for the different
items, in case you want to.

After that, we will ask you to provide
us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered based
on the priority of the work. Based on that, the discussion we had, on  
the other
expressions of interests we had during this whole process, we will
decide which items to propose to the AD to include in our charter.
It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a few  
items (let's say 4 new items)
so we will need to decide what's in and what's left for the next  
rechartering based on these elements.

In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate mail for  
each proposed item,
so we can follow the threat of the discussion of each item clearly.

Regards, Julien and marcelo

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:33:29 +0100

Hi Marcelo:

Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is work on route
optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on the list at
NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think?

Pascal

>-----Original Message-----
>From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering
>
>Hi folks,
>
>Following the procedure we described for the rechartering 
>process, we will open now a 10 day period (which can be 
>extended if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the 
>merits and the needs for the different items, in case you want to.
>
>us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered 
>based on the priority of the work. Based on that, the 
>discussion we had, on the other expressions of interests we 
>had during this whole process, we will decide which items to 
>propose to the AD to include in our charter.
>It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a 
>few items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide 
>what's in and what's left for the next rechartering based on 
>these elements.
>
>In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate 
>mail for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of 
>the discussion of each item clearly.
>

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:08:13 +0100

Hello Pascal,

On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hi Marcelo:
>
> Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is work on
> route optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on
> the list at NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think?

Can you send us some text proposal for work items that you'd like to see 
included in the charter? Then we can issue more email(s) to start the 
discussion, e.g. on global HAHA.

Thanks.

--julien

---

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:26:41 +0100

I had the same idea as Pascal. 
I think we are in a phase providing the NEMO-RO requirement documents and
analyzing these documents.
Current charter on NEMO-RO: "gather requirements and proceed with solving
the open issues".
Is the intention to define "next steps in rechartering" for NEMO-RO right
now?

I am aware of the relation with Autoconf and MANET WGs.

Teco.

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Verzonden: dinsdag 22 januari 2008 10:33
> Aan: marcelo bagnulo braun; [email-masked]
> Onderwerp: RE: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering
> 
> Hi Marcelo:
>

---

From: "HyungJin Lim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:40:57 +0900

Hi, Teco,

> I am aware of the relation with Autoconf and MANET WGs.

I agree with your pounting out.
I saw impacts that address configuration scheme has.
I think I am also aware of the relation with both WGs.

thanks

Hyung-Jin, Lim

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:02:50 +0100

Hi Julien:

I do not have text right now because I'm not too sure what to write. 

At the end of the day, I'd suggest that whatever text we come up with
makes a clear distinction between nested and non nested situations. A
number of the suboptimalities detailed in RFC 4888 are effectively much
more of a problem in the nested NEMO case. 

- Nested NEMO yields all the MANEMO discussions, whether we form a
specific WG, whether an existing WG already owns the space, whether and
how far existing solutions can be used in which situations, etc... 

- Non nested is more clearly within MEXT's basket and we could tackle
the problem faster and with mush less politics involved. 

What do you think?

Pascal

>From: julien laganier [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
>Behalf Of Julien Laganier
>Sent: mardi 22 janvier 2008 11:08
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); marcelo bagnulo braun
>Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering
>
>Hello Pascal,
>
>> optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on 
>the list 
>> at NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think?
>
>Can you send us some text proposal for work items that you'd 
>like to see included in the charter? Then we can issue more 
>email(s) to start the discussion, e.g. on global HAHA.
>
>Thanks.
>
>--julien
>
>process, we 
>> >will open now a 10 day period (which can be extended if the 
>> >discussion needs it) for you to discuss the merits and the 
>needs for 
>> >the different items, in case you want to.
>> >
>> >After that, we will ask you to provide us an ordered list of the 
>> >items we should work on, ordered based on the priority of the work. 
>> >Based on that, the discussion we had, on the other expressions of 
>> >interests we had during this whole process, we will decide which 
>> >items to propose to the AD to include in our charter.
>> >items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide 
>what's in and 
>> >what's left for the next rechartering based on these elements.
>> >
>> >each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of the 
>discussion of 
>> >each item clearly.
>> >

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:47:15 +0100

Pascal,

In general terms, i can say that we have done the process as open as  
possible so far and we have included all the concrete proposals that  
have been proposed so far, so if it is not in the list, is because  
anyone made such proposal.

In this particular topic, Thierry made a presentation during the  
meeting and there was some disucssion about several topics related to  
nemo deployment, not sure if global haha was one of them. The feedback  
we got from the AD is that we should not open the problem space too  
much, since we already have difficult problems ahead, like the ro  
problem. Don't know if this would aplly to having globally distributed  
HAs, maybe not.

Regards, marcelo

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:59:37 +0100

Hi Teco,

i don't think that this is the rechartering that the charter refers in  
the nemo ro case. I think this recharter is to be considered once we  
have finished the requirements and we decide to work on solutions, in  
particular for the vehicular and the personal router case, for whic we  
need to recharter to work on solutions. this is not the case for the  
aviation case, in which we don not need to recharter to do work on  
solutions.

bottom line is that this is not the only chance for rechartering and  
it is likely that we will need to recharter in the future.

The question is what issues are urgent and need to be worked out  
inmediatelly to foster mip/nemo implementation and deployment.

Regards, marcelo

El 22/01/2008, a las 11:26, Teco Boot escribió:

>> route

---

From: "HyungJin Lim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:23:30 +0900

Hi Pascal,

See the inline....

> how far existing solutions can be used in which situations, etc...

Yes, NEMO RO's fundemental problem as well as impacts should be
defined I think also,
     This issue is relation to NEMO AAA performance degration in
nested topology.

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:05:05 +0100

> In this particular topic, Thierry made a presentation during the meeting 
> and there was some disucssion about several topics related to nemo 
> deployment, not sure if global haha was one of them. The feedback we got 
> from the AD is that we should not open the problem space too much, since 
> we already have difficult problems ahead, like the ro problem. Don't 
> know if this would aplly to having globally distributed HAs, maybe not.

Global HAHA was part of it, and is the most important. The aviation 
industry needs it.

Thierry

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:05:30 +0100

Hello Pascal,

On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> number of the suboptimalities detailed in RFC 4888 are effectively
> much more of a problem in the nested NEMO case.
>
> specific WG, whether an existing WG already owns the space, whether
> and how far existing solutions can be used in which situations,
> etc...
>

I see your point about distinction between nested and non-nested cases.

However I'd suggest that whatever text we finally agree on -- or not -- 
we do need a text proposal to have a productive discussion. Not 
everybody understand "global haha". The initial text proposal can then 
evolve as part of the discussion.

--julien

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:07:52 +0100

Hello Thierry,

On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Thierry Ernst wrote:
>  > In general terms, i can say that we have done the process as open
> > as possible so far and we have included all the concrete proposals
> > that have been proposed so far, so if it is not in the list, is
> > because anyone made such proposal.
> >
> > meeting and there was some disucssion about several topics related
> > to nemo deployment, not sure if global haha was one of them. The
> > feedback we got from the AD is that we should not open the problem
> > space too much, since we already have difficult problems ahead,
> > like the ro problem. Don't know if this would aplly to having
> > globally distributed HAs, maybe not.
>

I am not convinced that aviation industry needs or needs not Global 
HAHA, but his is irrelevant to this rechartering process. Please do 
propose some text to put in the new charter, then we can have the 
discussion about whether it makes sense and who wants to have that.

Thanks.

--julien

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:16:21 +0100

> discussion about whether it makes sense and who wants to have that.

I was referring to Global HAHA more like the mechanism than the solution 
itself. The aviation industry needs a mechanism where it can switch from 
a HA to another one in a topologically distant location (e.g. Madrid to 
Munich).

Thierry

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:43:02 +0100

On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Thierry Ernst wrote:
> >>> as possible so far and we have included all the concrete
> >>> proposals that have been proposed so far, so if it is not in the
> >>> list, is because anyone made such proposal.
> >>>
> >>> meeting and there was some disucssion about several topics
> >>> related to nemo deployment, not sure if global haha was one of
> >>> them. The feedback we got from the AD is that we should not open
> >>> the problem space too much, since we already have difficult
> >>> problems ahead, like the ro problem. Don't know if this would
> >>> aplly to having globally distributed HAs, maybe not.
> >>
> >> Global HAHA was part of it, and is the most important. The
> >> aviation industry needs it.
> >
> I was referring to Global HAHA more like the mechanism than the
> solution itself. The aviation industry needs a mechanism where it can
> switch from a HA to another one in a topologically distant location
> (e.g. Madrid to Munich).

Your last sentence is a good start at a text proposal. Could you 
elaborate? 

E.g., what does "switch" mean in that context? A HA is dealing with MNs 
and/or mobile networks numbered within aggregated addressing space 
routed to the HA. What are the implication of the switch w.r.t. 
aggregation? Does it mean the address block is advertized twice thru 
both HA? etc.

--julien

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:19:25 +0100

El 22/01/2008, a las 15:16, Thierry Ernst escribió:

> solution itself. The aviation industry needs a mechanism where it  
> can switch from a HA to another one in a topologically distant  
> location (e.g. Madrid to Munich).
>

could you point out where this requirement is specified in the  
requirements document?

> <thierry_ernst.vcf>

---

From: "Davis, Terry L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:33:27 -0800

Marcelo

If the requirement isn't explicitly clear then we can clearly state it.  We have a few airlines that actually touch three continents before powering down the aircraft.  Both satellite communications and air-to-ground links, need to hand off smoothly between regions and continents as the aircraft crosses "air navigation service" boundaries and is handed off from one country's or region's service to another's.

Take care
Terry

> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:19 AM
> To: Thierry Ernst
> Cc: [email-masked]; Julien Laganier

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:41:36 +0100

Hi Terry,

El 22/01/2008, a las 16:33, Davis, Terry L escribió:

> Marcelo
>
> If the requirement isn't explicitly clear then we can clearly state  
> it.  We have a few airlines that actually touch three continents  
> before powering down the aircraft.  Both satellite communications  
> and air-to-ground links, need to hand off smoothly between regions  
> and continents as the aircraft crosses "air navigation service"  
> boundaries and is handed off from one country's or region's service  
> to another's.

right, this clearly means that there is a need for Route optimization,  
meaning that the aircraft needs direct (optimized) communication with  
the local infrastructure, but does this means that it needs to have a  
Home Agent located in each of these locations?

I can clearly identify in the requirement draft the need for route  
optimization with CNs distributed along the globe.
I can also identify in the draft the need for duplicated HAs in order  
to provide fault tolerance.

However, what i don't identify in the draft is the need to have  
globally distributed HAs

Of course, having a globally distributed HAs would indeed fullfill  
both requirements, but is is a necesary condition for any acceptable  
solution to support this?

Regards, marcelo

>>>>>> proposals
>>>>>> related

---

From: "Davis, Terry L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:53:21 -0800

Marcelo

As long as the requirements are understood, I'll wait to see how the work develops.  My biggest concern probably still remains the configuration complexity any solution will levy on the "air navigation service" providers.

Take care
Terry

> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:42 AM
> To: Davis, Terry L
> Cc: Thierry Ernst; Julien Laganier; [email-masked]

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:59:17 +0100

Hi Terry,

El 22/01/2008, a las 16:53, Davis, Terry L escribió:

> Marcelo
>
> As long as the requirements are understood,

this is exactly my concern

In the draft, the following is stated:

3.4.1.  Rationale for Aeronautics - Availability

    A need for high availability of connectivity to ground networks
    arises from the use of IP networking for carrying safety-of-life
    critical traffic.  For this reason, single points of failure need to
    be avoided.  If an RO solution assumes either a single MR onboard, a
    single HA, or some similar vulnerable point, and is not usable when
    redundant elements are present and in use then it will not be
    acceptable.  An RO solution also MUST NOT itself imply a single  
point
    of failure.

    This does not mention specific redundancy mechanisms for MRs, HAs,  
or
    other networking elements, so as long as some reasonable method for
    making each component redundant fits within the assumptions of the  
RO
    mechanism, this requirement can be considered satisfied.

So, it is explicitly noted that HAs need to be redundant, so this is  
clear

However, this does NOT directly imply having globally distributed HAs  
in different sites. I mean, just having multiple HAs in the same site  
would cover this requirement.(the site could be globally distributed,  
though, but still a single site)

So, i am worried by your comment that this is needed, because this is  
not what i understood from the draft

Maybe this is exactly the type of precisions that would benefit from  
the f2f discussion in the meeting

Regards, marcelo

> I'll wait to see how the work develops.  My biggest concern probably  
> still remains the configuration complexity any solution will levy on  
> the "air navigation service" providers.
>
> Take care
> Terry
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:45:56 -0500

On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:59:17PM +0100, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>
> So, it is explicitly noted that HAs need to be redundant, so this is clear
>
> However, this does NOT directly imply having globally distributed HAs in 
> different sites. I mean, just having multiple HAs in the same site would 
> cover this requirement.(the site could be globally distributed, though, but 
> still a single site)

I think I wrote most of that text, and Marcelo's understanding of it
matches exactly with what I was trying to say.  Whether or not handoff
of HA responsibilities for MNPs is needed between different countries'
navigation service providers is really an operational decision to be
made amongst the operators of the air navigation services (ICAO), and I
haven't personally seen clear direction from them on that yet.  I know
there is a plan to obtain a large IPv6 block in ICAO's name, but the
sub-division and management of that block isn't clear to me yet:

 - (a) Will it be divyed up into smaller blocks given to each country?

   or 

   (b) Will each aircraft simply be given an MNP out of the large
       internationally-managed block?

 - Will the MNPs be assigned such that they aggregate somehow (at
   national lines like "owner's home country" or "airframe's home
   country, or at a regional level like "home airport", etc.)

 - etc.

These decisions help to determine whether transfer of HA duties is
needed.  For instance if option (a) is selected, the country that
owns the MNP may always operate the HA, but if (b) is selected, then
the HA used may be dynamic.

Operational details of how an IPv6 air traffic control network is
managed play heavily into the technology selection.

> So, i am worried by your comment that this is needed, because this is not 
> what i understood from the draft
>
> Maybe this is exactly the type of precisions that would benefit from the 
> f2f discussion in the meeting

I think so.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:11:37 -0800

Hi Pascal,

The MEXT charter already talks about NEMO route optimization. The
current approach, as I understand, is to first collect the
requirements for the three use cases we have identified and then
figure out if we need one or multiple solutions.

Global HAHA (draft-thubert-nemo-global-haha-02.txt) is one of the
solutions addressing a specific problem (moving the sessions for
a mobile router from one HA to another HA in a different
geographic location). Yes it was on high on the NEMO list, but not
in the MEXT list.

Lets try to complete the work on requirements ASAP. Then we will
know what solutions we might need to solve NEMO route
optimization. Sounds good?

Vijay

---

From: MARCELO BAGNULO BRAUN <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:41:58 +0100

> optimization. Sounds good?

FWIW, this is the work that we are hoping to start in the interim meeting

Regards, marcelo

>>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: lundi 
>>> 21 janvier 2008 19:09
>>> To: [email-masked]
>>> discussion needs it) for you to discuss the merits and the needs 
>>> for the different items, in case you want to.
>>>
>>> us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered based on 
>>> the priority of the work. Based on that, the discussion we had, on 
>>> the other expressions of interests we had during this whole 
>>> process, we will decide which items to propose to the AD to include 
>>> in our charter.
>>> items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide what's in 
>>> and what's left for the next rechartering based on these elements.
>>>
>>> In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate mail 
>>> for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of the 
>>> discussion of each item clearly.
>>>

-- 
----
MARCELO BAGNULO BRAUN
WebCartero
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

---

From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:05:17 +0900

Marcelo,

In general, I support global HAHA. The global HAHA solves several  
issues at once.
About the redundancy (local), we took the several parts of HAHA for HA  
reliability work.
Other features such as the global redundancy, RO, and multihoming are  
still not yet addressed.
I expect that we discuss these in the interim meeting next month.

I want WG chairs to clarify what is the relationship between the  
interim meeting and this re-charter process?
If we see the need of some RO work in the interim meeting, is that  
item considered as a new item?

regards
ryuji

On 2008/01/23, at 5:41, MARCELO BAGNULO BRAUN wrote:

>>>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent:  
>>>> lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09
>>>> To: [email-masked]
>>>> process, we will open now a 10 day period (which can be extended  
>>>> if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the merits and the  
>>>> needs for the different items, in case you want to.
>>>>
>>>> on the priority of the work. Based on that, the discussion we  
>>>> had, on the other expressions of interests we had during this  
>>>> whole process, we will decide which items to propose to the AD to  
>>>> include in our charter.

---

From: "Hakima Chaouchi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:06:11 +0100

****************************************************************************
**
      We apologize in advance if you receive multiple copies of this CFP.
****************************************************************************
**

                CALL FOR PAPER -- MWNS 2008

Mobile and Wireless Networks Security Workshop Co-located with Networking
2008 
May 5-9, 2008, Singapore.
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/sce/networking2008/MWNS08.pdf

*Keynote by Charles E. Perkins*, Nokia Research Center* *

---------------------------------------------

Network security being for many years addressed in wired networks,  it
becomes 
more and more challenging in mobile and wireless networks since those
environ-
ments are widely open and accessible.

In  this  context,  mobile  and  wireless terminals and communication are
more 
vulnerable  than  wired  terminals  and  networks to different attacks such
as 
denial of service, man in the middle, hijacking, spoofing, etc... In
addition,
they have less resources which is a real problem in security solution
design. 
This poses new challenges in a sense that we need to design secure and
robust
solution and light enough  to  be  supported  by  those  wireless  and
mobile 
terminals and communications.

Different wireless and mobile technologies are available today such  as
RFID,
Wifi, Wimax, 3G, etc...  promising the deployment of a variety of services
for
mobile users.  However,  security  needs  to be robust enough in order for
the
user to trust the services offered on top of those technologies. Other
techno-
logies  such  as  ad  hoc or sensor networks are also very interesting for
new 
type  of  services,  but  they  also need to prove that security level is
high 
enough to support user services.

Related to these hot topics, a keynote will be given by  Charles  E.
Perkins, 
Research Fellow Mobility  &  Internet Protocols at Nokia Research Center.
C.E. 
Perkins has been actively participating to IETF standardization  and
authored 
standards-track  documents.  He  authored and edited books on Mobile IP and
Ad 
Hoc Networking.

This  workshop  is  seeking  original  research  works  related to security
in 
wireless and mobile networks. It addresses and is not limited to these
topics:

- Security in wireless PAN, LAN, MAN, RAN
- Security in Mobile networks (2G, 3G, 4G...)
- Security in IP Mobility  networks
- Security in ad hoc networks
- Security in sensor/RFID networks
- Fault tolerance and Self-healing
- Security policies and models
- Security of wireless and mobile terminals (smart cards, biometry... )
- Privacy, anonymity, and tracking
- Identity management
- AAA
- ...

The authors are invited to submit papers to [email-masked] following
Net-
working 2008 format.

Best  accepted papers will be published in Annals of Telecommunications
inter-
national journal.

-----------------------------------------------------

*Important dates:*

- Full Paper submission: *February 15th 2008*
- Acceptance Notification: March 15th 2008
- Camera ready: March 30th 2008

-----------------------------------------------------

*Workshop Chairs: *M. Maknavicius and H. Chaouchi - TELECOM & Management
Sud-
Paris, France

*Technical Program Chair: *O. Heen, Thomson R&D, France

*Technical Program Committee:*
K. Al Agha, LRI, France
N. Alonistioti, Univ. of Pireus, Greece
J. Araujo, Alcatel-Lucent, France
J.W. Atwood, Concordia University, Canada 
F. Bader, CTTC, Spain
A.-L. Beylot, ENSEEIHT, France
A. Bouabdallah, UTC, France
H. Chaouchi, TELECOM & Management SudParis, France
I. Chrisment, Nancy University, France
V. Friderikos, Centre for Telecommunication Research of London, UK
I. Ganchev, University of Limerick, Ireland 
M. Gerlach, Fraunhofer Fokus, Germany 
W. Haddad, Ericsson, Sweden 
A. Hecker, ENST, France 
O. Heen, Thomson R&D, France 
J. Leneutre, ENST, France 
M. Maknavicius, TELECOM & Management SudParis, France 
K. Masmoudi, Cyber Networks, France 
A. Mellouk, University Paris 12, France 
M. Minier, INSA-Lyon, France 
H. Moustafa, France Telecom, France 
P. Muhlethaler, INRIA, France 
J.M. Nogueira, UFMG, Brazil 
M. O'Droma, University of Limerick, Ireland 
O. Rojas, Instituto Tecnologico de Jiquilpan, Mexico 
P. Schoo, DoCoMo Euro-Labs, Germany 
A. Serhrouchni, ENST, France

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:13:10 +0100

Hi Vijay:

This does sound great and the points made in this thread all sound very
reasonable to my hears. I started this because none of the individual
mails from Marcelo seemed to refer to that specific topic and I was
concerned that it was being set aside.

Pascal

>From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: mardi 22 janvier 2008 18:12
>To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>Cc: marcelo bagnulo braun; [email-masked]; Julien Laganier
>The MEXT charter already talks about NEMO route optimization. 
>The current approach, as I understand, is to first collect the 
>requirements for the three use cases we have identified and 
>then figure out if we need one or multiple solutions.
>
>Global HAHA (draft-thubert-nemo-global-haha-02.txt) is one of 
>the solutions addressing a specific problem (moving the 
>sessions for a mobile router from one HA to another HA in a 
>different geographic location). Yes it was on high on the NEMO 
>list, but not in the MEXT list.
>
>Lets try to complete the work on requirements ASAP. Then we 
>will know what solutions we might need to solve NEMO route

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:47:06 +0100

El 23/01/2008, a las 6:05, RYUJI WAKIKAWA escribió:

> About the redundancy (local), we took the several parts of HAHA for  
> HA reliability work.
> Other features such as the global redundancy, RO, and multihoming  
> are still not yet addressed.

so far, none

> item considered as a new item?

not sure i understand, we are already chartered to work on RO solution  
space, at least for the aviation case. So i don't see that we need any  
form of rechartering for working in ro.
Of course, as in any discussion, we may end up figuring out that some  
work is needed in some area and that we may need to add new stuff in  
the charter to do that, but this is not related to the interim but a  
general feature of any wg related discussion afaict.

regards, marcelo

>>>>> if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the merits and  
>>>>> the needs for the different items, in case you want to.
>>>>>
>>>>> whole process, we will decide which items to propose to the AD  
>>>>> to include in our charter.
>>>>> mail for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of the