Subject: [mobile-ip] Next Steps in Mobility BOF [nsiim]

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:27:11 +0100

We will hold a 1 hour BOF to discuss mobileip rechartering and
restructuring during the San Francisco IETF next month.
This BOF has been scheduled, but in view of current conflicts, the
time slot may still change.

Below, please find the BOF charter and procedures to subscribe to
the BOF mailing list: [email-masked] .
In order to get some discussion going before the meeting,
we will soon be sending out preliminary charters for the proposed mip4
and mip6 working groups to the mipcharter list.

-gabriel (on behalf of mobileip chairs)

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

Next Steps in IP Mobility BOF (nsiim)

The Mobile IP working group has defined basic mobility and associated
specifications for IPv4 and is at the verge of finishing the base
specification for IPv6.

It is now a good time to look at the activities of the working group
and how to better structure future efforts.  Upon doing so, it is
evident that beyond their superficial resemblance, mobility for IPv4
and IPv6 differ considerably.  They are very different with respect to
their underlying technologies, deployment issues and levels of
maturity.  MIPv4 has been a proposed standard for several years, has
been adopted by other standard development organizations and has been
deployed commercially.  The basic specifications for MIPv6, on the
other hand, are just now being finalized.  Whereas for MIPv4 the more
pressing issues at this moment are to further ease its deployment, for
MIPv6 the more urgent work is still on finalizing protocol details and
mechanisms of a more basic nature. This leads to a two-pronged approach
in which the basic idea is to divide the current working group into two
new ones: one concentrating on IPv4 mobility and the other on IPv6
mobility.

This purpose of this BOF is to discuss this proposal and to seek IETF
input on how each of the resultant working groups should be chartered.

Another issue to be discussed is to figure out how to best determine
when items should be adopted by the working group(s). As an example,
when items are more of a research nature, it may be best not to
pursue them in the IETF as other organizations may be better suited
for this. Other potential criteria to apply are the existence
of independent implementations and/or deployment plans as  a measure
of interest in a given proposal.

The chairs also seek feedback on how best to interface with other
working groups, both within the IETF (e.g., to tackle ND optimizations
with IPv6) and elsewhere (e.g., to coordinate work on movement detection
with the IEEE).

Chairs:
     Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
     Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
     Gabriel Montenegro <[email-masked]>

Agenda (1 hour slot):
     Reasons to recharter, general directions (chairs) - 10 min
         MIPv4 Charter proposal (chairs)
         MIPv6 Charter proposal (chairs)
     Open Discussion - 40 min
     Next Steps (AD's and chairs) - 10 min

Mailing list: [email-masked]

      To subscribe -
          To:   [email-masked]
          data: [un]subscribe

      To post -
          To: [email-masked]
         (From: must be subscribed)
------------------------------------------