Subject: Re: [MEXT] new charter version

From: "Jean-Michel Combes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 14:46:15 +0200

Hi Behcet,

2007/6/30, Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>:
>
> Hi Jari,
>   In fact HA reliability work is almost over. I think the current draft is
> expected to go for WGLC soon and the subteam is almost closed. I don't think
> it would take Aug 08 to complete this work. HA reliability could be
> completely removed from this charter.

IMHO, I am not so sure. That depends whether you want, concerning the
IPsec failover, a MIP6 WG based solution or a general one (i.e. IFare
work) included the draft.

> Kind regards,
> Behcet

[snip]

Best regards.

JMC.

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

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 09:06:27 -0400

> work) included the draft.

I agree.  When I read it last, it seemed like to meet all of its stated
capabilities, the HA reliability work would need to block on the IFARE
work, but perhaps it was just unclear and my understanding was wrong.
Other than this part, it did seem mostly complete to me.  Specifically,
there didn't seem to be detailed enough information on the IPsec state
synchronization mechanism within the hareliability draft itself to
implement both interoperable, and fully-functional solutions.

-- 
Wesley M. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:37:52 -0500

If we still need to do the WGLC, I think we should include the
item in the charter.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:50:14 -0500

Wesley,

> implement both interoperable, and fully-functional solutions.
The IPsec sync is outside the charter. The next revision of the
charter text tries to make this clear (and at the same time
address the issue that Sam raised).

(But its another question of whether the WG wants to normatively
refer to an IPsec sync specification. If so, at this time they would be
referring to work that has not even been chartered yet, so you'd
want to be careful that you don't insert such a dependency lightly.)

Jari

---

From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:57:00 +0900

Hi Jean-Michel

> work) included the draft.

IPsec failover is assumed only for the HA virtual switch case.
There is no mechanism available so far in IETF.
And we don't think the MIP6 WG is the right place to specify the  
ipsec failover.
We already had consensus on this point in MIP6 WG.
As soon as solution(IFARE?) are available, we can update the HA  
reliability to support that.

regards,
ryuji