Subject: [Monami6] updated goal / agenda

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:27:27 -0400

Folks,

I would like to add some items to be discussed during the BOF. I would 
like to first have your opinion before adding them to the agenda

    - Should we consider MMI 
(http://clarinet.u-strasbg.fr/~montavont/ietf/draft-montavont-mobileip-mmi-02.txt) 
as a potantial document on which the working group can focus? This I-D 
proposes different issues that can be actually split into several:
        - How to use MIP when a MN has several interfaces (without 
modifying the spec). Basically it is based on a specific use of MIP and 
on a special use of HoAs.
        - The document gives a classification of the granularity of the 
mobility. I think this can be moved to draft-ernst-goals-and-benefits 
since this is our main problem statement draft.
       - The document proposes solutions to each of the proposed 
granularity. Each of them could be investigated.

    - I think that it would be very good to have another document 
describing the scenarios. I see in each I-Ds the description of one, or 
two scenarios, but it would be nice to have some mobility scenarios 
defined somewhere. In draft-ernst-goals-amd-benefits, we have some real 
life scenarios, and in draft-montavont-mobileip-pb-statement we define a 
taxonomy to represent topology. What I propose here is to produce a 
document which describes mobility-related scenarios, as well as 
theoritical scenarios, as real-life scenarios. This would help to ensure 
that all of our solutions apply in all mobility cases

    - Our relation with other WGs (such as MIP6, NEMO, Mobopts, 
SHIM6...) should be highlighted. To initiate that discussion, I would 
propose to schedule the presentation of draft-bagnulo-shim6-mip-00.txt

    - It is now a long time that people are working on flow movement / 
flow filtering for MIP6. Potantial solutions for this are
       _draft-nomadv6-mobileip-filters_ Filters for Mobile IPv6 Bindings 
(NOMADv6) [version -02 Expired] 
<http://www.comnets.uni-bremen.de/%7Ekoo/draft-nomadv6-mobileip-filters-02.txt> 

_        draft-montavont-mobileip-ha-filtering_ Home Agent Filtering for 
Mobile IPv6 [TXT] 
<http://clarinet.u-strasbg.fr/%7Emontavont/ietf/draft-montavont-mobileip-ha-filtering-v6-00.txt> 
[HTML] 
<http://clarinet.u-strasbg.fr/%7Emontavont/ietf/draft-montavont-mobileip-ha-filtering-v6-00.html> 
(expired)
        _I-D from Hesham Soliman on flow filtering

_
Can we try to merge these solutions and add this to the goal of Monami6: 
propose a solution to deal with flow movement?

    - We should clearly list on the agenda that we will discuss about 
including NEMO multihoming work into Monami6.

Please express your opinions on these points.

Nicolas

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

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:34:16 +0800

Hello Nicolas,

On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 17:27 -0400, Nicolas Montavont wrote:
> as a potantial document on which the working group can focus? 

I feel that it is a bit jumping the gun to start talking about specific
documents. I am sure your actual intention is to discuss on specific
area Monami6 should include, and the mmi drafts happen to cover some
areas in which you feel Monami6 should investigate.

So let's talk about these areas instead of focusing on a specific draft.

> This I-D 

Isn't this specifically what Monami6 is about? It is, IMHO, already in
the current draft charter.

> granularity. Each of them could be investigated.

I agree that we should explore the granularity.

> that all of our solutions apply in all mobility cases

Agree, I think separating out the deployment scenario would be helpful.

> propose to schedule the presentation of draft-bagnulo-shim6-mip-00.txt

I agree.   Since this is the first BoF session, its good to get a
concrete idea of how Monami6 relates to other existing WG or BoF, as it
would  certainly help in defining the Monami6 charter.

> propose a solution to deal with flow movement?

If its relevant to multi-interfaces (or multi-address) and mobility.  I
have read earlier versions of these drafts quite a while ago, IIRC, some
parts of the flow filtering work has nothing to do with multiple
addresses nor multiple interfaces.

> including NEMO multihoming work into Monami6.

Agree.  I mean, what Thierry says is right on target; clearly,
multihoming issues that impacts both NEMO and MIPv6 is preferable to be
handled in a potential WG like Monami6.  However, NEMO-Specific issues
are more difficult to discuss while Monami6 is still a BoF.    

I say let us put it this way, should Monami6 becomes a WG, and the NEMO
WG are willing to transfer the multihoming work to Monami6, we would be
glad to accept.

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:34:16 +0800

Hello Nicolas,

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:21:17 -0400

Hi Chan-Wah

>So let's talk about these areas instead of focusing on a specific draft.
Yes, I think you are right here. But as some ideas on what we want to do 
in Monami6 are in MMI draft, I wanted to point out the draft.

>addresses nor multiple interfaces.
I dont' understand your comment here. These drafts propose a solution to 
move one flow from one interface (let say the previous interface) to 
another, without moving other flows using the previous interface. This 
has to deal with multiple interfaces.

Nicolas

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:21:17 -0400

Hi Chan-Wah

Nicolas

---

From: "Koojana Kuladinithi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:06:37 +0200

Hi Nicolas & Chan-Wah,

>Subject: Re: [Monami6] updated goal / agenda
>
>
>Hi Chan-Wah
>
>Chan-Wah Ng wrote:
>
>>Hello Nicolas,
>>

Agreed with Chan-Wah. It's better to see how Monami6 relates to other
WGs too.

>>>propose a solution to deal with flow movement?

I aggree with Nicolas that we were working on flow movement/preference
settings since long time. Considering the standisation of a solution, we
now at least have a Monami6 work. I am happy with the current agenda. 

As I understood, once we are successful with Monami6 work, we can work
on how to merge the above drafts to achieve following, as defined on our
current WG 

"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)"  

>>have read earlier versions of these drafts quite a while ago, IIRC, 
>>some parts of the flow filtering work has nothing to do with multiple 

I too don't understand what Chanwah's meaned. I agreed with Nicolas
comments.

Koojana

>>>[email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>[email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>>
>>  
>>
>
>
>[email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>

---

From: "Koojana Kuladinithi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:06:37 +0200

Hi Nicolas & Chan-Wah,

Koojana

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:30:45 +0800

> I too don't understand what Chanwah's meaned. I agreed with Nicolas

Ok, perhaps it is time I go re-read those drafts :).   I thought there
were some parts that are not particularly relevant to Monami6, but it
seems I was mistaken.

However, my position still stands.  I feel that it is better to first
focus on defining the problem and working scope of Monami6.  From
Koojana's response, it would seems that the current draft charter of
Monami6 already cover the work area that these drafts address.  So,
what's there to add to the current charter? (without having re-read the
draft, I based this entirely on Koojana's words ;))

I am not against using any of these drafts as a potential solution
candidate.  But that's jumping the gun a bit.  Its not appropriate,
IMHO, to start talking about candidate solution while we are the BoF
stage.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:30:45 +0800

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:30:08 +0900

Hi,

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:30:45 +0800
Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]> wrote:

> what's there to add to the current charter? (without having re-read
> the draft, I based this entirely on Koojana's words ;))
> 

IMHO, it may help our case if a solution to the item listed in the
charter is already identified. This shows that the BOF request is
based on past work and is sufficiently advanced to justify ...
standardization (what the IETF is all about, right ?).

I think it would further help if everyone agree that a particular
solution is a right starting point or not. So, commenting on the draft
itself would be a very good thing to do prior to the IETF as it would 

This said, it's obvious that the most important discussions are:
1. First importance
- agreeing on the proposed charter
- agreeing on the proposed agenda

2: After 1. is agreed upon:
- discussing the solutions that could fit into the items listed on the
charter
- discussing the problem statement further

In any case, any discussion on the mailing list is good as long as it is
relevant. So discussion MCOA (draft-wakikawa) and MMI
(draft-montavont) are good topics on which I would appreciate more input
by all people who have already registered the Monami6 ML (91 people as
of today)

Thierry

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:33:42 -0400

Hi,

>by all people who have already registered the Monami6 ML (91 people as
I would add that discussion on draft-ernst-goals-and-benefits and 
draft-montavont-mobileip-pb-statement would be good as well.

Nicolas

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:33:42 -0400

Hi,

Nicolas

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 06:30:30 +0900

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:33:42 -0400
Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >In any case, any discussion on the mailing list is good as long as it
> >is relevant. So discussion MCOA (draft-wakikawa) and MMI
> >(draft-montavont) are good topics on which I would appreciate more
> >input by all people who have already registered the Monami6 ML (91
> >people as of today)
> >  
> >

Sure, and this is already listed on the proposed agenda. 

Regarding the other points, based on this thread, I prospose to change
the "solution" items, and add one more about "interaction with the
other WGs" in our draft agenda:

OLD:
o Solutions that should be standardized
   draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa
   Multiple Care-of Address Registration 

o Other solutions that should be considered

NEW
o Solutions that could be considered and possibly combined
   into 1 or several standards:
  1. draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa
     Multiple Care-of Address Registration 
  2. draft-montavont-mip6-mmi 
     Mobile IPv6 for Multiple Interfaces (MMI) 
  3. draft-nomadv6-mobileip-filters
     Filters for Mobile IPv6 Bindings (NOMADv6) [version -02 Expired] 
  4. draft-montavont-mobileip-ha-filtering
     Home Agent Filtering for Mobile IPv6 

o Discuss relations between Monami6 and other WGs (MIP6, NEMO, Shim6)

But since ChanWah and Nicolas don't seem to agree on the need for this,
I think we need to discuss this further. 

Thierry

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:42:41 +0800

>      Home Agent Filtering for Mobile IPv6 

I would prefer to specify to which problem these solution(s) solve, as a
draft example just to illustrate what I mean,

<example>
o Solutions that could be considered and possibly combined
   into 1 or several standards:
  1. draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa
     Providing mechanism for multiple CoA registrations at HA/CN
</example>

Or even better,

<example>
o Solutions that could be considered and possibly combined
   into 1 or several standards:
  1. Mechanism for multiple CoA registrations at HA/CN
     (draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa)
</example>

> I think we need to discuss this further. 

Hmm ... I thought both Nicolas and myself agree to have this item, but
Thierry disagrees.

However, I understand your arguments in your mail of another thread, and
I am not at all strong about this.  I mean, as of today, we have a 2.5
hrs time slot.  If the agenda is not fully packed, it is, IMHO, a
worthwhile discussion item.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:42:41 +0800

<example>

Or even better,

<example>

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:05:23 +0900

> I would prefer to specify to which problem these solution(s) solve, as
> a draft example just to illustrate what I mean,
> 
> <example>
> > But since ChanWah and Nicolas don't seem to agree on the need for
> > this, I think we need to discuss this further. 
> > 
> 

I meant about listing the solutions, not discussing the interaction with
other WGs. I agreed with both suggestions from Nicolas.

> However, I understand your arguments in your mail of another thread,
> and I am not at all strong about this.  I mean, as of today, we have a
> 2.5 hrs time slot.  If the agenda is not fully packed, it is, IMHO, a

OK, then we can say we reached rough consensus on this now ;-)

Thierry