Subject: [Monami6] Do we need to update the Monami6 charter ?

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:31:42 +0900

I'm also starting a new thread on the charter, following the discussion
on the "I-D ACTION:draft-bagnulo-shim6-mip-00.txt thread" where Erik
wrote, on 050726:

"I think that Monami6 should look at both multiple CoAs and multiple
HoAs and understand the interrelationships between MIP/Nemo and shim6.":

I'm positive about writing this explicitly in the Monami6 charter if
this is a consensus.  What the other people think ?

Thierry

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:44:36 +0200

As i said in another message, imho the monami work should be aimed to 
solve the mip host multihoming problem, as described in the problem 
statement draft, and should not limit itself to registering multiple 
CoAs
in particular, supporting multiple HoAs should be an explicit task 
since it provides major fault tolerance features.

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:54:24 -0400

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> statement draft, and should not limit itself to registering multiple CoAs

This is definitly not what we want to do.

> since it provides major fault tolerance features.

So do you think we need to explcitly add an item in the expected output 
of the WG (see the proposed charter)?

The reason why we would like more discussion on this topic is because we 
want to avoid to loose ourself in an unsolvable problem, and we prefer 
to first identify issues related to multihoming for nodes operating MIP6 
and quickly propose solutions. I think that one approach here can be to 
identify problems, and focus on simple solutions (basically MIP6 
extensions) for most of them.

SHIM6 is a solution by itself, dealt in SHIM6 WG, so the task of Monami6 
could be to evaluate how we can use SHIM6 to reach some of the goals and 
how it can be used to solve some of the issues raised.

Nicolas

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:54:24 -0400

Nicolas

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:32:46 +0800

Hello all,

just one clarification needed from Nicolas, and a direct response to
Thierry's poll.

> This is definitly not what we want to do.

Nicolas, I just want to make it clear to other ML members, as I am sure
this is what you meant: when you say 
> "This is definitly not what we want to do",
you actually mean 
"limit itself to registering multiple CoAs" is definitely not what we
want to do, right? 

Your one-liner response may be misread as the *entire paragraph* is not
what we want to do ;)

> >> HoAs and understand the interrelationships between MIP/Nemo and shim6.":

I think it fall well within our vision of how Monami6 should evolve. 

Now, speaking entirely from my limited 4+ years of attending IETF,
whenever a WG come up with a protocol that may affects some other WG's
work, there is always the choice of either of the WGs solving the
problem, or transferring the problem to a third WG.  In this case, the
impact of Shim6 on mobility protocol can well be analyzed by Shim6, by
MIP/NEMO, or by potentially new WG, such as Monami6.

I think Monami6 is a good place to do this, considering by nature of
Monami6, it is suppose to gather both expertise from mobility and
multihoming.

The way the text is written is also favorable, because we would not be,
as Nicolas put in above, "to loose ourself in an unsolvable problem",
since the text never say we are committed to solving the problem.
instead it is a more of an investigative kind of work.

On one hand, we want to focus on the more immediate problem of Multiple
CoAs registrations, and we could quickly come up with a solution,
considering the amount of work that was already been produced.  On the
other hand, there are other problems that we would also want to explore,
and possibly solve.

> >> this is a consensus.  What the other people think ?

Sorry for the long-winded response, in short, I support the inclusion
into the charter.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:32:46 +0800

Hello all,

you actually mean 

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:32:42 -0400

Hi,

>"limit itself to registering multiple CoAs" is definitely not what we
Sure, I wanted to say let's not limit ourself to multiple CoAs. Sorry 
for the confusion.

Nicolas

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:32:42 -0400

Hi,

Nicolas

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:10:03 -0700

> this is a consensus.  What the other people think ?

FWIW I chose the wording "look at" with some care. I think that monami6 
should look at, and understand how things can/might interact, even if 
monami6 only ends up standardizing extensions for dealing with multiple 
CoAs. (Of course, monami6 might also come up with the architecture for 
how MIP6 and shim6 should interact, i.e. do more work in this space. But 
even if it doesn't, there is a need to understand that part of the pie.)

   Erik

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:10:03 -0700

Erik

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:26:52 -0700

> MIP/NEMO, or by potentially new WG, such as Monami6.

Or, alternatively, folks ignore the interaction and a train wreck 
happens at the end. FWIW this is why I find some of the current 
discussion on this list very frustration, because of instead of having a 
BoF that explores how things might/should interact, some folks appear to 
be pushing for ignorance which I think will lead to a train wreck down 
the road.

> Monami6, it is suppose to gather both expertise from mobility and

I agree that Monami6 is a good place to explore the larger issues.

> other hand, there are other problems that we would also want to explore,

Agreed. The short term problems are registration of multiple CoAs and a 
test protocol mechanisms so that the HA/MN can detect when a path 
to/from a given CoA stops working so they can switch to using one of the 
other CoAs.

    Erik

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:31:29 -0400

Hi Erik,

Erik Nordmark wrote:

> discussion on this list very frustration, because of instead of having 
> a BoF that explores how things might/should interact, some folks 
> appear to be pushing for ignorance which I think will lead to a train 
> wreck down the road.

I think that the success of Monami6 to become a WG depends on how well 
we will be able to define the boundary and the interaction with other 
WGs. We started this with MIP6 and NEMO, and now you seem to encourage 
that this interaction should be extended to SHIM6. This is something 
interesting to me.

> Agreed. The short term problems are registration of multiple CoAs and 
> a test protocol mechanisms so that the HA/MN can detect when a path 
> to/from a given CoA stops working so they can switch to using one of 
> the other CoAs.

Hopefully, I think we begin to converge here...

Nicolas

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:31:29 -0400

Hi Erik,

Nicolas

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:58:04 +0200

> This is definitly not what we want to do.

well, if you read the proposed charter, it states that:

The expected output of the WG is:

A document explaining the needs for and the design goals of multihoming 
[Informational]
An analysis document of multihoming under the operation of Mobile IPv6 
[Informational]
A solution to register multiple care-of addresses for a given home 
address [Standard Track]
A solution to exchange policies between the parties involved in the 
mobility management (presumably the mobile node/mobile router, the home 
agent and possibly the correspondent nodes in case of Routing 
Optimization) [Standard Track]
Recommendations to deploy the solutions in combination with other 
required mechanisms [Informational]

Goals and Milestones

Nov.05 Submit to IESG: Motivations and Goals of Multihoming
Nov.05 Submit to IESG: Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6
Apr.06 Submit to IESG: Multiple CoA Registration
Apr.06 Submit to IESG: Policy Exchange between mobility management 
entities
Aug.06 Submit to IESG: Deployment Recommendations

So, actual solutions there are only two: multiple CoAs and policy 
exchanging... no additional fault tolerance, no multiple HoAs, no 
ingress filtering, no address selection, no etc, right?

> So do you think we need to explcitly add an item in the expected 
> output of the WG (see the proposed charter)?
>

imho the goal of the wg should be to provide multihoming support to 
mip. in order to do that, the problems identified in your problem 
statement draft need to be solved, and imho several of them, including 
the multiple hoas problem should be al least tried to be solved in 
monami

> The reason why we would like more discussion on this topic is because 
> we want to avoid to loose ourself in an unsolvable problem, and we 
> prefer to first identify issues related to multihoming for nodes 
> operating MIP6 and quickly propose solutions.

i agree that getting into unsolvable problems is troublesome. but OTOH, 
we cannot limit ourselves to only problmes that have quick solution. 
IMHO, the goal of a wg, and especially of a bof, is to try to 
understand the problems and see how hard they are. It may be ok to have 
some discussions and determine that we won't be able to solve the whole 
problem. But imho it is a mistake to limit ourselves from the start, 
without even have studied the problems and the potential solutions.

>  I think that one approach here can be to identify problems,

so far i agree

>  and focus on simple solutions (basically MIP6 extensions) for most of 
> them.
>

don't agree here. IMHO we should do much better than limiting ourselves 
to the simple parts. If we are convinced that mip multihoming is 
needed, we should try to provide support for it,

> SHIM6 is a solution by itself, dealt in SHIM6 WG, so the task of 
> Monami6 could be to evaluate how we can use SHIM6 to reach some of the 
> goals and how it can be used to solve some of the issues raised.
>

yes, but in addition, maybe there are:
- perhaps some additional requirements that can be provided to the shim 
wg as inputs so that the shim supports mip multihoming better and more 
naturally and from the start
- perhaps additional mechanisms are needed to provide full interaction 
ans some tunning must be made, which could be done in monami

however, so far we should do first is to understand how useful shim is 
for the goals of monami

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:40:37 +0900

Hi Erik, everyone,

> > I'm also starting a new thread on the charter, following the
> > discussion on the "I-D ACTION:draft-bagnulo-shim6-mip-00.txt thread"
> > where Erik wrote, on 050726:
> > 
> FWIW I chose the wording "look at" with some care. I think that
> monami6 should look at, and understand how things can/might interact,
> even if monami6 only ends up standardizing extensions for dealing with
> multiple CoAs. (Of course, monami6 might also come up with the
> architecture for how MIP6 and shim6 should interact, i.e. do more work
> in this space. But even if it doesn't, there is a need to understand
> that part of the pie.)

OK, very good, it is our intention, as one could understand from reading
draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement.   However, this is
entering into the details and my concern is whether our not all our
intentions should be stated explicitly in the charter. Also, I'm
wondering if this would require a dedicated output document or
milestone. 

In my opinion, it's too ealry to write down all intentions and it would
make  the charter longer, so I choose not to  write this in the charter.
But if more folks thinks we should, then we will add more text.

I take it is one of the items to debate when discussing the charter next
Friday.

Thierry