Subject: Re: [netlmm] More netlmm drafts

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:01:19 -0800 (PST)

As always I second Alex 

I suggest a slot to discuss netlmm extensions in Prag. We have already made a request for ours.
 Such a discussion could enable the members to  know which WG will be in charge of any possible extensions? 

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
To: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2007 9:18:46 AM
Subject: [netlmm] More netlmm drafts

There are more personal drafts  in the netlmm space, version 00, 
available in the I-D repository:

draft-jeong-netlmm-ipv4-support-req-00.txt
draft-lee-netlmm-nemo-ps-00.txt

Both these two are good problem statement drafts in the netlmm extension 
space.  The 'starting point' drafts should take them into account, and 
leave eg IPv4 out of the base.

draft-russert-netlmm-hmap-00.txt
draft-taniuchi-netlmm-mpa-proxymipv6-00.txt
draft-zhao-netlmm-miptype-00.txt

These three drafts talk to various extent about netlmm extensions.  All 
these should be left out from the base 'starting point' draft.

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

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

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

---

From: Myung-Ki Shin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:30:54 +0900

Hi all,

I agree with Alex and Behcet.

I think draft-jeong-netlmm-ipv4-support-req-00.txt will be discussed
in our current agenda - IPv4 support in PMIPv6 (Raj - 30 mins)

For the open topics,
  draft-lee-netlmm-nemo-ps-00.txt,
  draft-russert-netlmm-hmap-00.txt,
  draft-taniuchi-netlmm-mpa-proxymipv6-00.txt,
  draft-zhao-netlmm-miptype-00.txt, etc.

I'd also suggest to add open discussion into the agenda to figure out
need to be discussed further for PMIPv6, time permitting.

Regards,
Myung-Ki,

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Myung-Ki Shin, Ph.D.| [email-masked]
ETRI/PEC            | 161 Gajeong-dong Yuseong-gu
Tel:+82-42-860-4847 | Daejeon, 305-350 Korea

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:50:10 -0800

Hi,
We do understand that there are a number of drafts submitted on
NETLMM-related topics. At this point, we see that making progress on the
base protocol and getting it to completion is the most important task at
hand. That is why the meeting time in Prague has been dedicated solely
to discussing the open issues on the protocol. If we did not have
sufficient time to discuss the open issues and instead split the time to
discuss extensions, we are then going to require more time to get the
base protocol done and that is undesirable, given the urgency that we
are seeing for the base protocol from several end users of this
protocol. 

We apologize for the lack of meeting time for the extensions discussion.
We hope that everyone can understand the situation and continue to
discuss these extensions on the mailing list for the time being. 

Thanks,
Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Myung-Ki Shin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 4:31 PM
> To: Behcet Sarikaya
> Cc: netlmm
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] More netlmm drafts
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I think draft-jeong-netlmm-ipv4-support-req-00.txt will be 
> discussed in our current agenda - IPv4 support in PMIPv6 (Raj 
> - 30 mins)
> 
> For the open topics,
> I'd also suggest to add open discussion into the agenda to 
> figure out need to be discussed further for PMIPv6, time permitting.
> 
> Regards,
> Myung-Ki,
> 
> Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> > As always I second Alex
> > I suggest a slot to discuss netlmm extensions in Prag. We 
> have already 
> > made a request for ours.
> >  Such a discussion could enable the members to  know which 
> WG will be 
> > in charge of any possible extensions?
> >  
> > Regards,
> >  
> > Behcet
> > Both these two are good problem statement drafts in the netlmm 
> > extension space.  The 'starting point' drafts should take them into 
> > account, and leave eg IPv4 out of the base.
> > 
> > These three drafts talk to various extent about netlmm extensions.  
> > All these should be left out from the base 'starting point' draft.
> > 
> > Alex
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:46:14 +0100

> in our current agenda - IPv4 support in PMIPv6 (Raj - 30 mins)

YEs, and because this draft is being discussed currently, and because 
this draft says that IPv4 infrastructure coexists with IPv6 
infrastructure, the 'base' netlmm solution draft should only assume 
IPv6, not talk about IPv4 at all.

I think we should do the base PMIPv6 draft pure IPv6 and then see IPv4 
separately.  This can lead to a PMIPv6 based on DS-MIPv6, or  PMIPv4, or 
PMIPv4 based on DS-MIPv4, depending on the requirements of this problem 
statement draft.

If we set DS-MIPv6 in PMIPv6 draft then the IPv4 netlmm problem 
statement document will not be able to suggest development of a quick 
and simple PMIPv4 solution.

Setting DS-MIPv6 in the PMIPv6 base draft is not a good idea to me IMHO.

Alex