Subject: [Mip4] Meeting minutes from Montreal

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:14:40 -0500

Please see attached, and send any updates/comments by the
end of this week.

-Pete

MIP4 WG meeting, IETF 66
------------------------

Document Status
---------------

draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis
 
   Waiting for Charlie to revise the document.
Charlie: I had a revision ready a while a go but technical problems
prevented me to publish it. I will summarize the changes and publish
them soon and publish the revision soon

draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution
 
   Completed WG last call. Ready to be sent to the
   IESG.

draft-ietf-mip4-fmipv4
   Ready for WGLC

draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext
   Ready for WGLC

draft-ietf-mip4-message-string-ext
   Under WG last call. some changes needed
Henrik proposed some text. 
Kent requests to get approval for the text on the list

draft-ietf-mip4-mobike-connectivity
   Some comments received during the first last call.
   second last call needed.

draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements
   Ready for WGLC. Concerns about the need for 31 RADIUS
   attributes. Radext needs to do something before anything
   proceed.
   Aboba  commented that the radius AVP space has to be extended
   Jari: AVP space is not exchausted but it will be considering what is in
         the pipeline. The AVP has to be extended somehow.
   Jari: Yes, radext needs to do something.
   Kent: this is a requirements document. Not the document that
         is defining the attributes

draft-ietf-mip4-reg-tunnel
   With the AD, but has expired.  Will be resubmitted next week

draft-ietf-mip4-rfc2006bis
   New revision out

draft-ietf-mip4-faerr
draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis
draft-ietf-mobileip-lowlatency-handoffs-v4
        Approved, in RFC Editor's queue

New charter proposals
---------------------
1. Carrying IPv6 in MIPv4

Jari: 

    It has been proposed to add IPv6 carrying capability to MIPv4,
    based on draft-tsirtsis-v4v6-mipv4 .  This was approved by the
    IESG about 2 weeks ago, on June 29.

George - Jari had a few questions on the mailing list about
scoping the work

Jari - It is related to the problem statement. On whether a
problem statement is needed

George - there is a dsmip problem statement common to both
DS-MIPv4 and DS-MIPv6 in the MIP6 WG

Vijay - dsmip problem statement only argues that running
MIPv4 and MIPv6 at the same time is not a good idea. Does
not really try to justify the extension to MIPv4 to add
the capability to carry IPv6 traffic. Specifically it does
not describe the scenarios in which it is useful to tunnel
IPv6 over MIPv4

Hesham - ?

Jari - Problem statement should be done. Could be in the
MIP6 WG.

2. MIPv4 based Moving Network (NEMO) support

George: Nemov4 basic was defined in the NEMO WG. NEMO WG is
mainly IPv6. It was ok with one item, but does not want to
take on NEMOv4 extensions. The problem is that base NEMOv4
spec does not support foreign agent or prefix allocation.
These are minor extensions and can be done quickly in the
MIPv4 WG

Vidya - the base NEMOv4 spec will work with foreign agents
but work unoptimized

George - correct

Viday - Very minor work. can be reviewed both by NEMO and
MIP4 WGs. 

Henrik - Does not care whether this is done in NEMO or 
MIPv4. NEMOv4 base seems to be informational. Question is
should NEMOv4 be informational or standards track

Kent - Support moving base NEMOv4 here to MIP4 WG and do
these small enhancements at the same time.

Vidya - Support doing NEMOv4 as standards track in the MIP4
WG. Move the base draft here.

George - Supports it.

Jari - What kind of deployments plans or business interests
exist for this?

George - ??

Kent - Cisco has been shipping mobile routers for a while
now. This work started because other companies wanted to
standardize this.

Alexandru Petresecu - We have customers for this. Regarding
where to do this, the base NEMOv4 document is going for 
WG last call in the NEMO WG again. so we need to decide
soon.

Henrik - We are missing one thing. Carrying V4 NEMO traffic
over NAT. Have you looked at this?

George - Have looked at it. Nothing more is needed.

Sri Gundavelli - Shouldn't be a problem.

Alexandru - MIPv4 NAT traversal should be sufficient. 

Charlie - How is prefix ownership addressed in NEMOv6?

Vijay - Problem still exists. Route Optimization for NEMOv6
is not addressed.

George - Prefix assignment done exactly like home address
allocation.

Pete - Looks like there is consensus to take on these items.
Will be added to the new charter proposal.

George - What about base NEMOv4?

Henrik - will talk to the NEMO WG chairs and the AD and decide.

3. Generic notification mechanism

Sri Gundavelli presented the mechanism in the draft.

Henrik - does not think this is useful for NEMO prefix
delegation. Other cases like registration revocation make
sense. Proposed to re-work the registration revocation
mechanism to use this mechanism.

Sri - Agrees

Henrik - will be good to get reviews

George - Thinks this is a good idea. Take it on as a MIP4
WG item.

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/