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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:10:58 -0500

Comments solicited on:

MIP6 (Mobility for IPv6 WG) Draft Agenda
----------------------------------------

MONDAY, November 10, 2003 
1530-1730 Afternoon Sessions II

CHAIRS: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
        Gopal Dommety	<[email-masked]>

Agenda:

1. Preliminaries	10 Mins			Chairs
   - Minutes
   - Document status
   - Agenda bashing

2. MIPv6 MIB		15 Mins			Glenn Keeni
   I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-mipv6-mib-00.txt

3. MIPv6 Remote interop testing	 15 Mins	T.J Kniveton/Samita C.
   I-D: draft-kniveton-mipv6-remote-testing-00.txt

4. Inter Home Agents Protocol (HAHA)  10 Mins	Ryuji Wakikawa
   I-D: draft-wakikawa-mip6-nemo-haha-00.txt

5. Filters for Mobile IPv6 Bindings (NOMADv6) 10 Mins  K. Kuladinithi 
   I-D: draft-nomadv6-mobileip-filters-00.txt

6. Roadmap for the WG	15 Mins			Chairs and ADs

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

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:47:57 +0900

Hi,

I do have a concern about the agenda. 

First thing first: I may have missed something during the MIP6 charter
discussion: I don't see anything related to multihomed mobile node.
(multihoming covers MNs with several interfaces, MNs with several HAs,
and MNs with several HoAs/CoAs). Is this something to be excluded or
included in this WG ?

About the agenda, draft
draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-00.txt
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf-announce/Current/msg26474.html)
has been submitted in an effort to investigate issues in supporting
multihomed mobile nodes under Mobile IPv6.

Thus, I'm wondering if it won't be better to discuss the issues and the
potential items that will have to be taken under consideration by the
new MIP6 WG, rather than discussing specific solutions (I guess that 4
and 5 somewhat fall into the same discussions [Ryuji, please correct me
about 4]). 

In any case, draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-00.txt
attemps to state what the problem is so that we are all on the wave in
order to be able to design a single WG solution that would address all
the issues. Probably it would be useful to include this draft in the
agenda.

Comments ?
Thierry

-- 

Thierry Ernst, PhD
WIDE at Keio University, Japan
E-mail: [email-masked]
Web: http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/
--
Jun Murai Lab
Keio University K-square Town Campus
1488-8 Ogura, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki
Kanagawa, 212-0054 Japan
Phone : +81-44-580-1600
Fax   : +81-44-580-1437
Mobile: 090-9815-8023

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA / 島慶一 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:13:41 +0900 (JST)

Hi,

I wonder if we can have a time to discuss mechanisms for RO procedure
initiation judgement.  The basic draft mentions that a
mobile/correpondent node should be administratively enabled/disabled
to allow RO.  However, I think we need more flexible mechanism for
managed networks.

Please take a look into
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shima-mip6-rohints-00.txt,
which describes one such proposal.

Regards,
---
Keiichi SHIMA
IIJ Research Laboratory <[email-masked]>
KAME Project <[email-masked]>

From: [email-masked]
Subject: [Mip6] Draft Agenda for WG meeting at IETF58
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:10:58 -0500

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA / 島慶一 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:58:41 +0900 (JST)

Hi all,

Since it seems no one is intersted in this topic, I stop requesting a
slot for this.  I'll raise the same topic again before next next IETF
probablly with implementation and some operational experience.

# Comments or contacts about this topic are of course welcome at any time

---
Keiichi SHIMA

From: Keiichi SHIMA / 島慶一 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Mip6] Draft Agenda for WG meeting at IETF58
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:13:41 +0900 (JST)