Subject: RE: [Mip6] Draft Agenda for WG meeting at IETF58

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:15:53 -0600

Hi Thierry,

>Hi Basavaraj,
>
>I find your answer amazing...
>
>Given the fact the MIP6 WG is a new group, I find it very appropriate to
>discuss the missions of the WG right now. Also, I would find very
>appropriate to raise the issue at the meeting to see how many people
>have interest in this. If only a minority has, so, very fine, it means
>it's not considered important. Demonstration done.

As you note above, MIP6 is a new WG. What the WG ought to do was
discussed at 2 BOFs (NSIIM at IETF56 and MIP6 at IETF57). The charter
has been discussed at length and what you see now is the conclusion of
those discussions in addition to the feedback from the IESG/IAB. Of
course it does not imply that it is set in stone and no changes can be
made. We can obviously look at what are the importnat issues that need
to be dealt with for Mobile IPv6 and if there are missing pieces we
can always recharter. The scope of the charter has been intentionally
kept limited in order to ensure that only the most immediate problems
are dealt with. IETF58 will be the first WG meeting for MIP6. The
milestones are until Nov 04. It is very likely that we will see a
recharter of this WG at IETF60. Hence I am not ruling out this work
altogether, all I am saying is that the WG has an agenda and a roadmap
and we will stick to that. So far the discussion on the ML has been
more about the agenda itself and very little about the actual
problem. If I can see some interest in the problem (by some I mean
more than 5 people :) ), then we can consider it on the MIP6
agenda. Of course I am glad to see that there is a BoF to discuss
this work. So there is an avenue to determine the interest already.

>
>> >In the second place, there are a few drafts turning around this issues,
>> >and drafts have been submitted regularly for a few years. So, given the
>> >number of drafts and period of effect, I find it rather important. On a
>> >personal side, I would like to see something coming up from this
>> >activity so that we can implement a common solution, no doing our own
>> >cooking in our lab.
>> 
>> I am aware of the various drafts addressing this. But I do not see why
>> this is a critical need for the WG to take on at this time. I do not
>> for example see a large number of people in the WG demanding that this
>
>Please specify: how many people is considered "large" ?

Large > 5 people (since in a given WG, there are very few active
people and hence even if WG meetings have attendance of about 150~200
people or the number of people on ML is > 1000, large is relative)

>
>> be a work item because it is absolutely a MUST for mobile IPv6 to be
>> deployed. What you are cooking in your lab may be interesting but is
>> not necessarily needed by the industry at this time. 
>
>Huh ? The industry your are refering too is not the same as the one I'm
>involved in. The fact that I work for a University doesn't necessarily
>make me unaware of business realities.

Of course not. I am sure that there is plenty of industry-university
interaction for you to be aware of the business realities.

>
>> So if you believe
>> that there is interest in this work, the I-D can always be
>> standardized as Experimental (without WG intervention) which would let
>> the people with common interests implement it and interop.
>
>Don't take me wrong: I don't have any solution, so I cannot expect
>anything to be experimental ... But THERE ARE solutions, and all of them
>address distinct and complementary issues. The purpose of this
>discussion and draft-montavont is to come to an agreement on what is
>needed so that all the parties involved can work on a single solution.
>The need WG directive to achieve this. Designing a single specification
>is clearly a WG task.
>
>> >Anyway, let's see why the other people are thinking. If it happens that
>> >there is no room in this WG to deal with issue, I will most likely
>> >propose a BOF at Seoul Meeting (and, well, this might not be a bad idea,
>> >because the benefit of having several interfaces [either actual, or
>> >virtual] could be shared by both Fixed Nodes and Mobile Nodes (I'm not
>> >exclusively thinking about NEMO, although the idea comes from there]).
>> >The reason I have not yet pushed toward a new WG is because there are
>> >already many WGs. 
>> 
>> Well, please do intiate a discussion on this topic to determine 
>>  - the interest
>>  - how vital is this for IPv6 mobility
>
>> >In conclusion, may I request a short slot to deal the issue (not the
>> >solutions) during the meeting, please, so that we come to a WG consensus
>> >and act upon it ?
>> 
>> Sure, but first you have to demonstrate via the ML that there is some
>> interest in this topic. If you can do that in the next week or so, we
>> can include it on the agenda.
>
>This discussion is already initiated, and several people have already
>answered. I don't think it's necessary to demonstrate how vital it is
>for IPv6 mobility (could you by the way demonstrate how vital Mobile
>IPv6 is ? What about RO ? Just kidding); simply demonstrating the
>interest of people to work on this is enough. So, I will let the other
>intereted ML members with some space to pop up on the ML.

I am counting and watching the ML :) So far it is not very
encouraging. 

>Thierry.
-Basavaraj

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:01:09 +0900

Hi Basavaraj,

> this work. So there is an avenue to determine the interest already.

I must admit I was not very active on this list to make sure multihoming
would be considered, and I missed the thread when the charter was
approved. So, I'm partly to blame the discussion was not deepened. But
other draft authors too, they should have voiced up more, but may be
they don't know that at the IETF voicing up is the only way to get
through.

When was the draft charter last discussed on the ML the way ? The only
time I got my eyes open, I did raised the issue, and this was followed
up by people who agreed with me it is an important topic to consider.
Noone disagree. I take this as explicit agreement and I guess other
people concerned by this topic took this for granted.

BTW, the point of view you express in this thread is not consistent with
the initial draft agenda where you listed NOMAD (note to Nomad authors:
sorry to cite you all the time, it's surely not a temptative to blame
you although you are in the middle of the firework. Sorry about that :-)
- if that is not important topic, why did you list Nomad at the first
place, and why did you retract yourself ? (I'm not seeking any
responsabilities in posting draft agenda, I'm trying to understand your
thinking - you may have unconsciously considered multihoming and related
issues as an important topic ;-)

> people or the number of people on ML is > 1000, large is relative)

Ah, we need 6 people then ? :-) Might not be that difficult. First, if
we add up all the draft co-authors dealing with this subject we have 10
persons at least :-) Well, I would see the number of drafts dealing
around the subject as a more important parameter to determine how much
is large.

I wish other draft authors were more eager to discuss the issue, but
most likely they have already said all they have to said in their own
drafts. They need comments from other. 

Particularly, I wish the MIP6 chairs could comment on
draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-00.txt. I don't think
you read it yet. 

So, I will follow this discussion in a new thread "Multihomed mobile nodes".

> I am counting and watching the ML :) So far it is not very

Is it ? I might not have subscribed to the right mailing list then ...

Thierry.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:16:31 +0100

Thierry Ernst wrote:
>> The charter has been discussed at length and what you see now is 
>> the conclusion of those discussions in addition to the feedback 
>> from the IESG/IAB.
[...]
> When was the draft charter last discussed on the ML the way?

Before the mip6 list discussions there was much discussion on the
mipcharter list somewhere at sun.

Maybe these mipcharter threads have something about multi-homing.

Alex
GBU

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:34:28 +0100

Hi Basavaraj and all,

I have to add some comments too... see inline

>this work. So there is an avenue to determine the interest already.
Let me refer authors of current available drafts on multihoming: 
 - Thierry E.
 - Ryuji W.
 - Niko F. and all authors of Nomad
 - Hesham S.
 - Thomas N.
 - Mohammed K.-L.
 - Hosei M.
 - Karim E.
 - Julien and Chan-Wha (who work on multihoming in NEMO)

And as Thierry said, lot of drafts deal with multihoming issues. Maybe 
there is only few discussion in the maling list because of a lack of a 
common objective/goal between all authors.

I think it really is the good time to initiate discussion on multihoming 
at next IETF, even if it is only a short discussion. I think it is 
better than a bar BOF because we never know where discussion can go...

Nicolas