Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:33:42 -0800

All,
This is a consensus call to pick a WG document for PMIPv6. Please
indicate your preference in using draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 or
draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01 as a starting point for the WG document.
Please note that any document chosen as the WG document will have to
reflect WG consensus - so, the current version need not be considered
final by any means. If you think one or both these documents still have
any major open issues, please state those issues on the list as well. 

Please send an email stating your preference by 23th March, 2007. If you
don't have an adequate idea of the drafts, you may wait to see the
presentation of the drafts at the NETLMM meeting in Prague before you
respond to this call. 

Thanks,
The Chairs

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

---

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:49:37 -0600

I support the draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 draft as a WG document
for PMIPv6.

Regards,
Ahmad

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:34 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption
> 
> All,
> This is a consensus call to pick a WG document for PMIPv6. 
> Please indicate your preference in using 
> draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 or
> Please note that any document chosen as the WG document will 
> have to reflect WG consensus - so, the current version need 
> not be considered final by any means. If you think one or 
> both these documents still have any major open issues, please 
> state those issues on the list as well. 
> 
> Please send an email stating your preference by 23th March, 
> 2007. If you don't have an adequate idea of the drafts, you 
> may wait to see the presentation of the drafts at the NETLMM 
> meeting in Prague before you respond to this call. 
> 
> Thanks,
> The Chairs
>

---

From: "Taaghol, Pouya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 19:26:15 -0800

We also support adopting draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 as the WG
draft for PMIPv6.

Kind regards,
Pouya.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ahmad Muhanna [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 1:50 PM
To: Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

Regards,
Ahmad

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:45:33 +0100

Folks,

I support adoption of draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 
as a WG document.

Thanks.

--julien

On Monday 05 March 2007 22:33, Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> All,
> This is a consensus call to pick a WG document for
> PMIPv6. Please indicate your preference in using
> draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01 as a starting point
> for the WG document. Please note that any document
> chosen as the WG document will have to reflect WG
> consensus - so, the current version need not be
> considered final by any means. If you think one or
> both these documents still have any major open
> issues, please state those issues on the list as
> well.
>
> Please send an email stating your preference by 23th
> March, 2007. If you don't have an adequate idea of
> the drafts, you may wait to see the presentation of
> the drafts at the NETLMM meeting in Prague before
> you respond to this call.
>
> Thanks,
> The Chairs
>

---

From: "Mohamed Khalil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:36:12 -0600

mohamed
-----Original Message-----
From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

All,

Thanks,
The Chairs

---

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:03:45 +0100

Same here, I support the adoption of draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 as
a WG document.

Pascal

>From: Julien Laganier [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:46 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption
>
>Folks,
>

---

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:25:14 -0500

Chairs, 

Probably we should also include an option of combing best of both drafts
in a single document. 
I think there are several ideas described in
draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-02 that need careful 
consideration from WG. I request objective comments from WG members. 

Regards,
Ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

All,

Thanks,
The Chairs

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:03:03 +0100

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> All, This is a consensus call to pick a WG document for PMIPv6.
> draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02

This draft is not yet published in I-D Directory.  Can be found at
http://tinyurl.com/2seywb

It is 52 pages long.
-It unnecessarily deals with IPv4.
-uncoherently deals with its dependency on AAA:  ChangeLog says the AAA
   dependency is decoupled but section Security Considerations assumes EAP
   and EAP is used by AAA.
-uncoherently describes the use of rfc3776 (MIPv6 security): section
   Security considerations says rfc3776 for Mobile IPv6 is used and for
   P-MIPv6 use section 4.0 which doesn't exist.
   Moreover, the document fails to describe what happens if the MN has SPD
   entries for same HA for which the MAG has SPD entries: encapsulating
   ESP tunnels?
-ChangeLog says a new section 9 deals with multi-layer mobility
   management (probably intended for MIP6/P-MIP6 interactions) but ToC's
   and document's section 9 cover IANA Assignments, and keyword
   'multi-layer' doesn't appear at all.
-and more.

I perfectly understand that authors strived to take into account the
majority of the email list comments, and I'm personally thankful for
that.  That clearly shows authors work together with WG, that alone is
much support.

However, some of the remarks that I've personally made weren't intended
at answers 'yes, we can do that too'.  Authors seemed intended to grab
as much support of the draft.  Support is done, it's there.

But a 'starting point' draft should be smaller and leave place for other
drafts.

Again, this is for faster advancement.  The fatter the document the
longer it takes to advance.

Alex

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:40:19 +0100

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 or draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01 as
> a starting point for the WG document.

Both are unnecessarily bloated.  I'll explain separately each draft's
bloat IMHO.  Neither can be used as a 'starting point'.  Each has so 
many issues that solving all of them coherently will take so much time IMHO.

I would suggest that, instead of choosing between the two drafts, better
investigate common denominator ideas from both drafts and find the
smallest commonality.

The example at hand is to extract _only_ MH and pure MIPv6 from both
drafts and make that 'start point', leave HMIPv6, EAP and IPv4 out. 
That would qualify as starting point for the WG document.

If that investigation is hard to do then selecting among draft authors
and making a Design Team is often seen as a shortcut, that I'd recommend.

But I agree both drafts look as good candidates for selection.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:14:23 +0100

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01

This draft is in the I-D repository.

But the Authors submitted a more recent draft, version 02, announced on
this mailing list, available at:
http://tinyurl.com/3d2e2m

It is 23pages long (half than draft-sgundave).

It unnecessarily deals with:
-context transfer.
-inter-lma mobility.
-and others.

In a AAA sense, this draft can be seen  as an extension for a P-MIPv6
draft-sgundave solution if draft-sgundave left place for AAA (ie not
talk about AAA at all).

It has other things that draft-sgundave doesn't have and that may be
needed (see Trigger and Notification Messages); provided that
draft-sgundave leaves place for them.

Alex

---

From: "SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:16:12 +0100

I agree with Ajoy. Both draft-singh and draft-sgundave present interesting and complementary approaches. Typically, draft-singh can provide extensions to draft-sgundave as an alternative model. So a third option could be to merge these drafts by selecting the best of both.

Regards,
Pierrick

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Envoyé : mardi 6 mars 2007 22:25
À : Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked]
Objet : RE: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

Chairs, 

Regards,
Ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

All,

Thanks,
The Chairs

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:55:17 -0800

I dont see any logic or reason to go that route. Lot of work and thought
went in the
draft-sgundave.  We ensured, we complied with the base requirement draft and
that
is reflected in the official review comments. The latest draft (-02 version)
is solid
and can be the basic for further work. If any thing is missing, it can be
built on
top of this. Also, I dont see how these can be merged. Merging at this stage
does
not make any sense. Also, the SD meeting, the draft-sgundave got the
consensus. Just
that we are doing all of this again in the mailing list. IMO, let one draft
go
forward, which ever it is.

Sri

-----Original Message-----
From: SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 1:16 PM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

I agree with Ajoy. Both draft-singh and draft-sgundave present interesting
and complementary approaches. Typically, draft-singh can provide extensions
to draft-sgundave as an alternative model. So a third option could be to
merge these drafts by selecting the best of both.

Regards,
Pierrick

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:[email-masked]] Envoyé : mardi 6 mars
2007 22:25 À : Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked] Objet : RE: [netlmm]
Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

Chairs, 

Probably we should also include an option of combing best of both drafts in
a single document. 
I think there are several ideas described in
draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-02 that need careful consideration from WG. I
request objective comments from WG members. 

Regards,
Ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

All,
This is a consensus call to pick a WG document for PMIPv6. Please indicate
your preference in using draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 or
draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01 as a starting point for the WG document.
Please note that any document chosen as the WG document will have to reflect
WG consensus - so, the current version need not be considered final by any
means. If you think one or both these documents still have any major open
issues, please state those issues on the list as well. 

Thanks,
The Chairs

---

From: Sebastian Thalanany <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:07:41 -0600

Hi, Vidya,
                      Some thoughts on the two proposals: The conceptual 
benefits proposed by the draft "sgundave" and the draft "singh" must be 
considered in the formulation of a single draft. The logical 
partitioning of the PMIP function and the traditional CMIP function(RFC 
3775) must be considered to effectively enable various implementation 
and deployment choices. The loose coupling, between the PMIP and the 
CMIP functions, proposed by the draft "singh" addresses the latter 
requirement.

                      Thanks.

Regards,
    Sebastian

---

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:34:44 -0500

I do not believe that any specific draft got consensus in SD IETF meeting. 
Rather consensus was about PMIPv6 over DT draft.  Since now PMIP based solution has received 
concenus in IETF, we should work to design PMIP solution that would address 
need of various deployment scenarios. IMHO, the NETLMM WG should focus to 
define an optimal solution by considering various use case scenarios of 
PMIP deployments. 

Regards,
Ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sri Gundavelli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 7:55 PM
To: 'SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN'; Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; 'Narayanan, Vidya'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

I dont see any logic or reason to go that route. Lot of work and thought went in the draft-sgundave.  We ensured, we complied with the base requirement draft and that is reflected in the official review comments. The latest draft (-02 version) is solid and can be the basic for further work. If any thing is missing, it can be built on top of this. Also, I dont see how these can be merged. Merging at this stage does not make any sense. Also, the SD meeting, the draft-sgundave got the consensus. Just that we are doing all of this again in the mailing list. IMO, let one draft go forward, which ever it is.

Sri

-----Original Message-----
From: SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 1:16 PM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

Regards,
Pierrick

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:[email-masked]] Envoyé : mardi 6 mars
2007 22:25 À : Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked] Objet : RE: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

Chairs, 

Probably we should also include an option of combining best of both drafts in a single document. 
I think there are several ideas described in
draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-02 that need careful consideration from WG. I request objective comments from WG members. 

Regards,
Ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

All,
This is a consensus call to pick a WG document for PMIPv6. Please indicate your preference in using draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 or
draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01 as a starting point for the WG document.
Please note that any document chosen as the WG document will have to reflect WG consensus - so, the current version need not be considered final by any means. If you think one or both these documents still have any major open issues, please state those issues on the list as well. 

Please send an email stating your preference by 23th March, 2007. If you don't have an adequate idea of the drafts, you may wait to see the presentation of the drafts at the NETLMM meeting in Prague before you respond to this call. 

Thanks,
The Chairs

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:06:10 -0800

Hello Ajoy,

We can certainly have many extensions to PMIPv6. I already see
many drafts on various topics. IMO, we need a base protocol draft
right away that serves as a starting point for the entire working
group. Trying to merge the two drafts is only going to delay
having a base protocol draft. On top of that I don't believe the
two drafts can be merged in a clear manner.

More than one SDO is waiting for a NETLMMM WG protocol document.
It would be quite detrimental to PMIPv6 adoption in these SDOs
if we don't have a WG document soon.

Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 wrote:
> consideration from WG. 

I would like to see these ideas as extensions to
PMIPv6.

Vijay

I request objective comments from WG members.

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:43:02 -0800

Hi Sri,
Please note that there was no consensus on any drafts at the SD meeting. The consensus was a solution-level one on choosing PMIPv6 that was later confirmed on the list. There was a question about the drafts and it was quickly decided that the WG was not ready to make a call on that at the SD meeting. 

So, the present call in progress is really the first consensus call for documents. 

Thanks,
Vidya 

> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:55 PM
> To: 'SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN'; 'Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1'; 
> Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked]
> I dont see any logic or reason to go that route. Lot of work 
> and thought went in the draft-sgundave.  We ensured, we 
> complied with the base requirement draft and that is 
> reflected in the official review comments. The latest draft 
> (-02 version) is solid and can be the basic for further work. 
> If any thing is missing, it can be built on top of this. 
> Also, I dont see how these can be merged. Merging at this 
> stage does not make any sense. Also, the SD meeting, the 
> draft-sgundave got the consensus. Just that we are doing all 
> of this again in the mailing list. IMO, let one draft go 
> From: SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> I agree with Ajoy. Both draft-singh and draft-sgundave 
> present interesting and complementary approaches. Typically, 
> draft-singh can provide extensions to draft-sgundave as an 
> alternative model. So a third option could be to merge these 
> drafts by selecting the best of both.
> 
> Regards,
> Pierrick
> 
> 2007 22:25 À : Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked] Objet : RE: 
> [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption
> 
> Chairs, 
> 
> Probably we should also include an option of combing best of 
> both drafts in a single document.

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:49:51 -0800 (PST)

Hi Vidya,

Ok. That's fine, if it was decided that the vote that
took place would not be considered, and it would have
be done again at a later stage. Ignore my comment.

Sure. Lets go with this.

Thanks
Sri

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:22:28 +0100

Folks,

On Thursday 08 March 2007 05:06, Vijay Devarapalli 
wrote:
> Hello Ajoy,
>
> We can certainly have many extensions to PMIPv6. I
> already see many drafts on various topics. IMO, we
> need a base protocol draft right away that serves as
> a starting point for the entire working group.
> Trying to merge the two drafts is only going to
> delay having a base protocol draft. 

I strongly second that.

> On top of that I don't believe the two drafts can be
> merged in a clear manner.
>
> More than one SDO is waiting for a NETLMMM WG
> protocol document. It would be quite detrimental to
> PMIPv6 adoption in these SDOs if we don't have a WG
> document soon.

Ditto.

--julien

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:20:58 +0900

Hi all,

>> delay having a base protocol draft. 

I would support whatever can expedite the creation of the base protocol 
draft that can be referred to by other SDOs. And I would like to say 
Sri's draft has got more opinions from many other folks, which is a good 
reason to support it (one vote from me).

>> PMIPv6 adoption in these SDOs if we don't have a WG

Those SDOs are discussing PMIP without being sure about what PMIP 
actually is:). They desperately want something (hopefully one) to refer 
to. Timing is as important as completeness.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:34:52 +0100

Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:
>>>  right away that serves as a starting point for the entire 
>>> working group. Trying to merge the two drafts is only going to 
> I would support whatever can expedite the creation of the base 
> protocol draft that can be referred to by other SDOs. And I would 
> like to say Sri's draft has got more opinions from many other folks,
>  which is a good reason to support it (one vote from me).

Yes, the list traffic seems to be higher with respect to that draft. 
It's much support.

But ideally I as a WG member don't like be questioned such a polarizing 
question: which draft is best.  With such questions we'll see again room 
packing at the next meeting.

> actually is:).

:-)

> They desperately want something (hopefully one) to refer to. Timing 
> is as important as completeness.

I agree a good balance should be found when delivering high quality
document in diligent time.

IETF and each other SDO work differently and have different requirements 
and timelines.

We have an official process for IETF-SDO inter-relationships. We have
an SDO liaison for every major SDO.  Statements about the timings from
SDOs can come from our liaison with respect to that SDO.

Currently, only 3GPP2 TSG-X has made a statement relayed through our 
liaison.  That statement talks about need to do proxy mobile ip based 
solution.  It says nothing about the timeliness needed.  See the 
PostScriptum with the relevant mail.

At the same time, the NETLMM WG has not made any statement back to 3GPP 
through our liaison.

If I'm to interpret the request from 3GPP technically I consider the
draft-singh much more appropriated to 3GPP needs (has PMIP client 
relocation) than draft-sgundave (has not).

Alex
PS:
> To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006
> 17:12:55 -0800 From: Thomas Narten<[email-masked]> Subject:
> [netlmm] 3GPP2 Correspondence to IETF on netlmm
> 
> The IETF has just received a formal correspondence from 3GPP2 TSG-X 
> concerning network based mobility. The statement is short and says:
> 
>> 3GPP2 has made a decision to use the Proxy Mobile IP concept as a 
>> network based mobility management solution. We appreciate your help
>>  to progress the related work in IETF Mobile IP working groups.
> 
> (It will appear on the liaison statements page in a few days.)
> 
> Thomas (IETF Liaison to 3GPP2)

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:38:47 +0100

SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN wrote:
> I agree with Ajoy. Both draft-singh and draft-sgundave present
> interesting and complementary approaches. Typically, draft-singh can
> provide extensions to draft-sgundave as an alternative model. So a
> third option could be to merge these drafts by selecting the best of
> both.

Yes, selecting the best common features from both drafts is a viable 
option to me.

The most obvious is to use MAG and LMA (Mobile Access Gateway and Local 
Mobility Management) from draft-sgundave and PMIP Client  from draft-singh.

Alex

> 
> Regards, Pierrick
> 
> -----Message d'origine----- De : Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1
> [mailto:[email-masked]] Envoyé : mardi 6 mars 2007 22:25 À :
> Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked] Objet : RE: [netlmm] Consensus Call
> on WG Document Adoption
> 
> Chairs,
> 
> Probably we should also include an option of combing best of both
> drafts in a single document. I think there are several ideas
> described in draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-02 that need careful 
> Regards, Ajoy
> -----Original Message----- From: Narayanan, Vidya
> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:34 PM To:
> [email-masked] Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document
> Adoption
> 
> a starting point for the WG document. Please note that any document
> chosen as the WG document will have to reflect WG consensus - so, the
> current version need not be considered final by any means. If you
> think one or both these documents still have any major open issues,
> please state those issues on the list as well.
> 
> Please send an email stating your preference by 23th March, 2007. If
> you don't have an adequate idea of the drafts, you may wait to see
> the presentation of the drafts at the NETLMM meeting in Prague before
> Thanks, The Chairs
> _______________________________________________ netlmm mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> 
> _______________________________________________ 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: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:02:58 +0100

Sri Gundavelli wrote:
> I dont see any logic or reason to go that route. Lot of work and 
> thought went in the draft-sgundave.  We ensured, we complied with the
>  base requirement draft and that is reflected in the official review 
> comments.

The NETLMM WG Req document (draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req) says with
respect to IPv4 and IPv6 that the netlmm protocol should be independent
of IPv4 or IPv6.

Section 3.8:
> [...] both  IPv4  and  IPv6  should  be supported. Any IP
> version-specific features should be confined to the network protocol.

To me this is a recommendation to use UDP.

Instead you recommend Mobility Header which is a pure IPv6 feature, with 
new under discussion IPv4 addresses being developped for this Mobility 
Header.

I would think that if the urge to use Mobility HEader instead of UDP is 
so great then don't deal with IPv4, don't claim it works.  Don't create 
dependency on DS-MIPv6.  The base protocol already has dependency on 
MIPv6, why on DS-MIPv6?

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:07:41 +0100

Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 wrote:
> I do not believe that any specific draft got consensus in SD IETF
> meeting. Rather consensus was about PMIPv6 over DT draft.

That's right.  The consensus discussion in SD actually discussed a third 
draft option, which is Fred's features of DHCP, that I believe are still 
valid and DHCP should work in this netlmm space.

Why this polarization around draft-sgundave vs draft-singh when we 
actually should discuss basic features.  And DHCP should be part of it, 
despite the fact that neither draft-singh nor draft-sgundave use DHCP as 
a building block.

Alex

   Since now
> PMIP based solution has received concenus in IETF, we should work to
> design PMIP solution that would address need of various deployment
> scenarios. IMHO, the NETLMM WG should focus to define an optimal
> solution by considering various use case scenarios of PMIP
> deployments.
> 
> Regards, Ajoy
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Sri Gundavelli
> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 7:55 PM 
> To: 'SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN'; Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; 'Narayanan,
> Vidya'; [email-masked] Subject: RE: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG
> Document Adoption
> 
> comments. The latest draft (-02 version) is solid and can be the
> basic for further work. If any thing is missing, it can be built on
> top of this. Also, I dont see how these can be merged. Merging at
> this stage does not make any sense. Also, the SD meeting, the
> draft-sgundave got the consensus. Just that we are doing all of this
> again in the mailing list. IMO, let one draft go forward, which ever
> it is.
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN
> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07,
> 2007 1:16 PM To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; Narayanan, Vidya;
> [email-masked] Subject: RE: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document
> Adoption
> 
> Probably we should also include an option of combining best of both

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:09:23 +0900

Hi Alex,

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:
>>>> We can certainly have many extensions to PMIPv6. I already see many 
>>>> drafts on various topics. IMO, we need a base protocol draft
>>>> group. Trying to merge the two drafts is only going to delay having 
>>>> a base protocol draft.
>>>
>>> I strongly second that.
>>
>> protocol draft that can be referred to by other SDOs. And I would like 
>> to say Sri's draft has got more opinions from many other folks,

Yes, I understand that this is a straw poll type of thing and more 
discussion should be done at the meeting.

>> They desperately want something (hopefully one) to refer to. Timing is 
>> as important as completeness.
> 

If liaison statements from other SDOs could speed up the IETF process by 
stating the timeline, then they would probably do so. But I don't think 
IETF works that way... (I may be wrong, though)

> relocation) than draft-sgundave (has not).

This type of relocation would also be beneficial for 3GPP2, but my take 
is that this can be regarded as an extension to the base protocol. Of 
course we need discussion on this, too.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:11:36 +0100

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> drafts on various topics. IMO, we need a base protocol draft right 
> away that serves as a starting point for the entire working group.

Certainly.

But neither EAP nor IPv4 nor DS-MIPv6 should be part of that base.

> Trying to merge the two drafts is only going to delay having a base 
> protocol draft. On top of that I don't believe the two drafts can be 

Drafts with this level of audience (of both draft-singh and
draft-sgundave) and this level of passionate discussion take in the
order of years, from my past experience following similar drafts.

Do you see a lower limit?

I mean it's easy to discuss supporting quick or slow advancement, but
let's quantify this timeliness.

> More than one SDO is waiting for a NETLMMM WG protocol document. It 
> would be quite detrimental to PMIPv6 adoption in these SDOs if we 
> don't have a WG document soon.

What's our liaison saying with respect to timelines?

What do _we_ think about timelines, what's the timeline you think of?

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:13:40 +0100

Sri Gundavelli wrote:
> 
> Hi Vidya,
> 
> Ok. That's fine, if it was decided that the vote that took place
> would not be considered, and it would have be done again at a later
> stage. Ignore my comment.
> 
> Sure. Lets go with this.

:-) ok but this is not a favor anybody does to you, it's how it happened.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:15:09 +0100

Julien Laganier wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> On Thursday 08 March 2007 05:06, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>> Hello Ajoy,
>> 
>> protocol draft.

What do you agree with?  With the delay?  Do you agree with a delay of
3months to a 3-year timeline?  Or you wish to avoid a 6months delay to a
  1year timeline?

What's the timeline you expect?

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:26:00 +0100

Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:
>> Currently, only 3GPP2 TSG-X has made a statement relayed through
>> our liaison.  That statement talks about need to do proxy mobile ip
>> based solution.  It says nothing about the timeliness needed.  See
>> the PostScriptum with the relevant mail.
> 
> If liaison statements from other SDOs could speed up the IETF process
> by stating the timeline, then they would probably do so. But I don't
> think IETF works that way... (I may be wrong, though)

Right.  So what is the timeline you think these SDOs expect?  3years is
fine?  1year is necessary?

Just saying SDO needs this quick gives no hint about how we could plan.

>> At the same time, the NETLMM WG has not made any statement back to
>>  3GPP through our liaison.
>> 
>> If I'm to interpret the request from 3GPP technically I consider
>> the draft-singh much more appropriated to 3GPP needs (has PMIP
>> client relocation) than draft-sgundave (has not).
> 
> This type of relocation would also be beneficial for 3GPP2, but my
> take is that this can be regarded as an extension to the base
> protocol.

It can.  The minimal conditions between the two is to refer to each 
other.  HEre's one example:

draft-sgundave:
> When the mobile node attaches to an access link connected to the 
> mobile access gateway, the mobile node presents its identity, MN- 
> Identifier, as part of the access access authentication procedure. 
> After a successful access authentication, the mobile access gateway 
> obtains the mobile node's profile from the policy store, such as from
>  a AAA infrastructure.  The mobile access gatway would have all the 
> information for it to emulate the mobile node's home network on the 
> access link.  The mobile access gateway also starts sending periodic 
> Router Advertisements to the mobile node advertising its home network
>  prefix.

draft-singh:
> 2. After receiving the prefix as part of the router advertisement 
> from MAG1, the MN attempts to acquire another IP address, called the
> Proxy Home Address (pHoA) associated with the advertised prefix. The
> MN issues a DHCP request and a DHCP server assigns a pHoA consistent
> with the advertised prefix.

One uses DHCP the other uses RA.  For one the other is in Appendix.  So 
should these be combined?

Alex

---

From: "Chowdhury, Kuntal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:12:43 -0500

All three wireless SDOs have expressed interest in PMIP6 based solution.
Besides 3GPP2, WiMAX Forum also sent a communication to IETF regarding
this requirement. 3GPP SAE (TS 23.402/TR 23.882) has dependencies on
PMIP6. See 3GPP dependency list for more info.

This is certainly not a 1-3 year project. If PMIP6 spec does not come
out of IETF in 2007, every SDOs publication schedule will be impacted.
So, moving fast on the base draft is the most important task for the
netlmm WG, IMHO.

-Kuntal

> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:26 AM
> To: Hidetoshi Yokota
> Cc: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; [email-masked]
> Subject: [netlmm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG
> 
> Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:24:59 +0100

Chowdhury, Kuntal wrote:
> All three wireless SDOs have expressed interest in PMIP6 based
> solution. Besides 3GPP2, WiMAX Forum also sent a communication to
> IETF regarding this requirement. 3GPP SAE (TS 23.402/TR 23.882) has
> dependencies on PMIP6. See 3GPP dependency list for more info.

I haven't seen any liaison statement other that the 3gpp2 that I've
cited previously.  Specifically no liaison statement from WiMax Forum.

Could you please post url's about the timeline dependencies of other
SDOs on PMIPv6?

>  out of IETF in 2007, every SDOs publication schedule will be
> impacted. So, moving fast on the base draft is the most important
> task for the netlmm WG, IMHO.

I'm afraid a first delivery from WG to IESG of a finished base PMIPv6
draft on Stds Track in 2007 is clearly not feasible.

If this WG suggests a liaison statement to other SDOs about timelines, I
believe the timeline of PMIPv6 first delivery to IESG on Stds Track
should be suggested as mid-2008 at its earliest.  My oppinion.

Alex

> 
> -Kuntal
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu
>> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Thursday, March 08,
>> 2007 8:26 AM To: Hidetoshi Yokota Cc: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1;
>> [email-masked] Subject: [netlmm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG
>> 
>> Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:
>>>> Currently, only 3GPP2 TSG-X has made a statement relayed
>>>> through our liaison.  That statement talks about need to do
>>>> proxy mobile ip based solution.  It says nothing about the
>>>> timeliness needed.  See the PostScriptum with the relevant
>>>> mail.
>>> by stating the timeline, then they would probably do so. But I
>>> don't think IETF works that way... (I may be wrong, though)
>> Right.  So what is the timeline you think these SDOs expect?
>> 3years
> is
>>>> At the same time, the NETLMM WG has not made any statement back
>>>> to 3GPP through our liaison.
>>>> 
>>>> If I'm to interpret the request from 3GPP technically I
>>>> consider the draft-singh much more appropriated to 3GPP needs
>>>> (has PMIP client relocation) than draft-sgundave (has not).
>>> This type of relocation would also be beneficial for 3GPP2, but
>>> my take is that this can be regarded as an extension to the base 
>>> protocol.
>>>  Identifier, as part of the access access authentication
>>> procedure. After a successful access authentication, the mobile
>>> access gateway obtains the mobile node's profile from the policy
>>> store, such as
> from
>>> a AAA infrastructure.  The mobile access gatway would have all
>>> the information for it to emulate the mobile node's home network
>>> on the access link.  The mobile access gateway also starts
>>> sending periodic Router Advertisements to the mobile node
>>> advertising its home
> network
>>> prefix.
>> 
>> draft-singh:
>>>  from MAG1, the MN attempts to acquire another IP address, called
>>> the Proxy Home Address (pHoA) associated with the advertised
>>> prefix. The MN issues a DHCP request and a DHCP server assigns a
>>> pHoA consistent with the advertised prefix.
>> One uses DHCP the other uses RA.  For one the other is in Appendix.
>> 
> So
>>  This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
>> System. For more information please visit
>> http://www.messagelabs.com/email

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:34:11 -0800

Alex,

I would advice you to talk your 3GPP, 3GPP2 and WiMAX delegates in Motorola.

Vijay

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:44:43 +0100

> I would advice you to talk your 3GPP, 3GPP2 and WiMAX delegates in 

Vijay, I think this redirection practice should stop.

You sure know we participate at IETF as individuals.

I think you know IETF is not chartered neither by these SDOs nor by my
or your employer.

I've filed a complain to this WG Chairs about this redirection practice.
  I hope this redirection practice stops (together with the other
undesirable practice called 'room packing').

I need to see Liaison Statements about these SDOs and eventually
contribute to this WG reply Liaison Statement.  The personal contributor
statements "SDO-X needs this in 2007" don't qualify as that entire SDO
participants' needs.

In this group I've seen at least one statement from one SDO participant 
that isn't taken action upon.

RFC4053 Best Common Practice "Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements 
to and from the IETF":
> This document describes the procedure for proper handling of incoming
>  liaison statements from other standards development organizations 
> (SDOs), consortia, and industry fora, and for generating liaison 
> statements to be transmitted from IETF to other SDOs, consortia and 
> industry fora.  This procedure allows IETF to effectively collaborate
>  with other organizations in the international standards community.

Thanks for your message,

Alex

>>>  IETF regarding this requirement. 3GPP SAE (TS 23.402/TR 23.882) 
>>> has dependencies on PMIP6. See 3GPP dependency list for more 
>>> info.
>> 
>> Could you please post url's about the timeline dependencies of 
>> other SDOs on PMIPv6?
>> 
>>> This is certainly not a 1-3 year project. If PMIP6 spec does not 
>>> come out of IETF in 2007, every SDOs publication schedule will be
>>>  impacted. So, moving fast on the base draft is the most 
>>> important task for the netlmm WG, IMHO.
>> 
>> I'm afraid a first delivery from WG to IESG of a finished base 
>> PMIPv6 draft on Stds Track in 2007 is clearly not feasible.
>> 
>> If this WG suggests a liaison statement to other SDOs about 
>> timelines, I believe the timeline of PMIPv6 first delivery to IESG 
>> on Stds Track should be suggested as mid-2008 at its earliest.  My 
>> oppinion.
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Kuntal
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> If liaison statements from other SDOs could speed up the IETF
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> process
>>>>> by stating the timeline, then they would probably do so. But 
>>>>> I don't think IETF works that way... (I may be wrong, though)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> Just saying SDO needs this quick gives no hint about how we 
>>>> could
>>> plan.
>>>>>> At the same time, the NETLMM WG has not made any statement 
>>>>>> back to 3GPP through our liaison.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> consider the draft-singh much more appropriated to 3GPP 
>>>>>> needs (has PMIP client relocation) than draft-sgundave (has
>>>>>>  not).
>>>>> This type of relocation would also be beneficial for 3GPP2, 
>>>>> but my take is that this can be regarded as an extension to 
>>>>> the base protocol.
>>>> It can.  The minimal conditions between the two is to refer to 
>>>> each other.  HEre's one example:
>>>> 
>>>> draft-sgundave:
>>>>> When the mobile node attaches to an access link connected to 
>>>>> the mobile access gateway, the mobile node presents its 
>>>>> identity, MN- Identifier, as part of the access access 
>>>>> authentication procedure. After a successful access 
>>>>> authentication, the mobile access gateway obtains the mobile 
>>>>> node's profile from the policy store, such as
>>> from
>>>>> a AAA infrastructure.  The mobile access gatway would have 
>>>>> all the information for it to emulate the mobile node's home 
>>>>> network on the access link.  The mobile access gateway also 
>>>>> starts sending periodic Router Advertisements to the mobile 
>>>>> node advertising its home
>>> network
>>>>> prefix.
>>>> 
>>>> draft-singh:
>>>>> 2. After receiving the prefix as part of the router 
>>>>> advertisement from MAG1, the MN attempts to acquire another 
>>>>> IP address, called the Proxy Home Address (pHoA) associated 
>>>>> with the advertised prefix. The MN issues a DHCP request and 
>>>>> a DHCP server assigns a pHoA consistent with the advertised 
>>>>> prefix.
>>>> _______________________________________________ netlmm mailing 
>>>> list [email-masked]

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:50:20 -0800

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> contribute to this WG reply Liaison Statement.  

WiMAX and 3GPP2 have sent some kind of liaison statements. The WG chairs 
have more information on this.

I believe 3GPP does not send liaison statements. The dependencies are 
indicated through the 3GPP-IETF dependency list.

> The personal contributor

I know, I hesitated many times to send that earlier mail. But I 
participate in both, so I am aware of the needs in 3GPP.

Vijay

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 04:04:54 +0900

Hi Alex,

> Just saying SDO needs this quick gives no hint about how we could plan.

AFAIK, it is expected that 3GPP2 and 3GPP will finalize their work 
requiring PMIP protocol in 4Q/2007 to 1Q/2008 timeframe (correct me if 
I'm wrong). I don't know what level of maturity is required for PMIP, 
but one solid document would be appreciated.

>> 2. After receiving the prefix as part of the router advertisement from 
>> MAG1, the MN attempts to acquire another IP address, called the

As you suggested, there are common parts in the two documents. They can 
be combined conceptually, but I don't know about it textwise... Anyway, 
definitely we should discuss it at the meeting.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

---

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:56:07 -0500

I agree that SDOs are interested in PMIPv6 protocol.  
However, it is not clear to me that enough discussion has taken place 
in SDOs about details of both proposals being discussed in IETF. 
As far as I am aware, WIMAX Forum is targeting to discuss both drafts in

next planery call. 

Regards,
Ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chowdhury, Kuntal [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:13 AM
To: Alexandru Petrescu; Hidetoshi Yokota
Cc: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG

-Kuntal

process

So

---

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 16:48:38 -0500

Hello Vijay, 

I missed this email. I do NOT see draft-singh as an extension to
draft-gundave. Rather both drafts are complementary to each other. 
draft-singh is proposing a solution that allows anchoring of PMIP client
on a fixed node thereby allowing complete re-use of 
MIPv6 HA functionality whereas draft-gundave is proposing a solution
that require relocation of PMIP client during every handoff. 
The relocation of PMIP client during every handoff is deviation from
standard MIPv6 assumption and that is why there is need for 
various extensions such as time stamp extension etc in draft-gundave.  I
think 
draft-gundave can be used to address scenarios where PMIP relocation is
needed and draft-singh can be used to address scenario where 
PMIP client is anchored on a single node. I see both drafts as
complementary to each other. 

Regards,
Ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 10:06 PM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1
Cc: Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

Hello Ajoy,

We can certainly have many extensions to PMIPv6. I already see many
drafts on various topics. IMO, we need a base protocol draft right away
that serves as a starting point for the entire working group. Trying to
merge the two drafts is only going to delay having a base protocol
draft. On top of that I don't believe the two drafts can be merged in a
clear manner.

More than one SDO is waiting for a NETLMMM WG protocol document.
It would be quite detrimental to PMIPv6 adoption in these SDOs if we
don't have a WG document soon.

Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 wrote:
> drafts in a single document.
> draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-02 that need careful consideration from 
> WG.

I would like to see these ideas as extensions to PMIPv6.

Vijay

> final by any means. If you think one or both these documents still 
> have any major open issues, please state those issues on the list as
well.
> you don't have an adequate idea of the drafts, you may wait to see the

---

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:21:30 -0600

Ajoy et al,

This discussion on which SDOs have expressed interest in PMIP6 and what is
the timeline for it being available is not really productive. If the same
energies were spent on analysing the I-Ds and discussing technical content
we would be making forward progress (instead of the current state where we
debate endlessly on issues that do not result in the work moving forward).

IMO, we in the IETF are responsible for specifying a protocol for Netlmm.
How the SDOs use the specification is not our concern. If the SDOs have some
specific requirements for a netlmm protocol, they can just as well make them
known in the netlmm WG. There really is no value in finding out what any of
the SDOs opinion is about any of these drafts, because the netlmm WG is not
going to make a choice based on what another external SDO prefers or thinks.
People from the SDOs are just as welcome to express their views in the
netlmm WG where the discussion is open.

Regarding the timeline for when this work can be completed, I think we can
stop speculating about it and instead let the chairs make a determination.
The charters goals will no doubt need to be revised because the current
milestones are not aligned with the changes that have occurred since IETF67.

-Raj

---

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:17:19 -0500

Hi, Raj, 

Thanks for your response. Please find my inline responses. 

Regards,
Ajoy  

-----Original Message-----
From: Basavaraj Patil [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 3:22 PM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; Chowdhury, Kuntal; Alexandru Petrescu; Hidetoshi
Yokota
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG

Ajoy et al,

This discussion on which SDOs have expressed interest in PMIP6 and what
is the timeline for it being available is not really productive. 

Ajoy-> Agreed. I was trying to clarify this because there was some
confusion on the list. 

If the same energies were spent on analysing the I-Ds and discussing
technical content we would be making forward progress (instead of the
current state where we debate endlessly on issues that do not result in
the work moving forward).

Ajoy-> Absolutely. We need to review technical contents of various docs
and make objective assessment.  
I think we have been making good progress. We have been updating draft
based upon mailing list consensus and discussion. 

IMO, we in the IETF are responsible for specifying a protocol for
Netlmm.
How the SDOs use the specification is not our concern. If the SDOs have
some specific requirements for a netlmm protocol, they can just as well
make them known in the netlmm WG. There really is no value in finding
out what any of the SDOs opinion is about any of these drafts, because
the netlmm WG is not going to make a choice based on what another
external SDO prefers or thinks.

Ajoy-> I am not sure if I agree with this. If the customer of our
protocol is various SDOs, we will have to care about their requirements.

Also, we will also have to know how a given protocol will be used by
various SDOs. If we do not make such assumption, we will end-up defining
incompatible protocol. 
Incompatible protocol is not going to help anyone. 

Ajoy-> Sure 

Regarding the timeline for when this work can be completed, I think we
can stop speculating about it and instead let the chairs make a
determination.
The charters goals will no doubt need to be revised because the current
milestones are not aligned with the changes that have occurred since
IETF67.

Ajoy-> Sure, I care about quality of protocol. We should not compromise
quality for timeline. 

-Raj

> All three wireless SDOs have expressed interest in PMIP6 based
solution.

>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security 
>> System.

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 16:54:53 -0800

All,
There is some discussion on the use of PMIPv6 in other SDOs. Attached is
a letter from the WiMAX forum regarding this. Also, the 3gpp dependency
list can be found at http://www.3gpp.org/tb/Other/IETF/IETF.htm. 

Thanks,
Vidya

---

From: "Chowdhury, Kuntal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:16:15 -0500

> Incompatible protocol is not going to help anyone.

Ajoy,

I don't think we have to speculate how the SDOs will eventually use
pmip6 protocol in their architectures. The base pmip6 protocol spec
should focus on protocol details as much as possible. The SDO specific
adaptation of pmip6 should be discussed in respective SDOs.

-Kuntal

> From: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:17 PM
> To: Basavaraj Patil; Chowdhury, Kuntal; Alexandru Petrescu; Hidetoshi
> Yokota
> Cc: [email-masked]
> > As far as I am aware, WIMAX Forum is targeting to discuss both
drafts
> > in
come
> > out of IETF in 2007, every SDOs publication schedule will be
impacted.
> >>> by stating the timeline, then they would probably do so. But I
don't
3years
> >>>> At the same time, the NETLMM WG has not made any statement back
to
> >>>  a AAA infrastructure.  The mobile access gatway would have all
the
> >>> from MAG1, the MN attempts to acquire another IP address, called
the
> >> _

---

From: "Parviz Yegani \(pyegani\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:11:58 -0800

I support the adoption of draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 as a WG
document.

-Parviz 

-----Original Message-----
From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 1:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

All,

Thanks,
The Chairs

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:32:23 +0100

Alex,

On Thursday 08 March 2007 15:15, Alexandru Petrescu 
wrote:
> Julien Laganier wrote:
> >
> >> We can certainly have many extensions to PMIPv6.
> >> I already see many drafts on various topics. IMO,
> >> we need a base protocol draft right away that
> >> serves as a starting point for the entire working
> >> group. Trying to merge the two drafts is only
> >> going to delay having a base protocol draft.
> >
> > I strongly second that.
>
> What do you agree with?  

I agree that the process of merging two drafts is going 
to delay having a base protocol WG draft. 

And we're already past our milestones (base protocol 
completed Jan. 2007).

And this WG has been chartered more than one year ago, 
and still we delivered no protocol.

And our potential "customers" wants this now, if not 3 
months ago.

And... sigh.

> With the delay?  Do you agree with a delay of 3months
> to a 3-year timeline? Or you wish to avoid a 6months
> delay to a 1year timeline?
>

I do not want to enter the details of timelines. As I 
wrote above it's been already more than one year and 
we don't have a WG draft with a protocol. We passed 
our milestones, etc.

At this point, any additional delay is just going to 
increase the probability that what we design in this 
WG gets used nowhere.

I don't want to work on something that eventually gets 
RFC'ed but is used nowhere, that's a waste of my time 
and energy.

My 2 cents.

--julien

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:46:29 +0100

Alex,

On Thursday 08 March 2007 14:34, Alexandru Petrescu 
wrote:
> If I'm to interpret the request from 3GPP
> technically I consider the draft-singh much more
> appropriated to 3GPP needs (has PMIP client

I am confused by this statement. 

AFAICS, in draft-sgundave the PMIP client is within the 
MAG "a function that is on the access link where the 
mobile is anchored", and as such is relocated all the 
time.

OTOH one thing that might seems to be missing in 
draft-sgundave is data/signalling path separation 
where the PMIP client can be located elsewhere than on 
the data path. However I think that scenario can be 
supported with minor modifications: The PMIP client 
can be placed anywhere in the network provided that it 
sends proxy BUs containing an Alternate Care-of 
Address option with the MN's access router address in 
it.

--julien

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:39:19 +0100

Julien Laganier wrote:
> Alex,
> 
> On Thursday 08 March 2007 14:34, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> AFAICS, in draft-sgundave the PMIP client is within the MAG "a
> function that is on the access link where the mobile is anchored",
> and as such is relocated all the time.
> 
> OTOH one thing that might seems to be missing in draft-sgundave is
> data/signalling path separation where the PMIP client can be located
> elsewhere than on the data path. However I think that scenario can be
>  supported with minor modifications: The PMIP client can be placed
> anywhere in the network provided that it sends proxy BUs containing
> an Alternate Care-of Address option with the MN's access router
> address in it.

Hi Julien, thanks for pointing to this data/signalling differentiator in 
draft-singh, that could be accommodated with Alternate CoAs.  I agree 
with you.

Currently draft-sgundave doesn't contain alternate CoAs.  Is it
feasible?  YEs.  Is it feasible in draft-sgundave?  Yes.

But I also think that all that draft-sgundave does draft-singh can do
too.  One important goal during writing draft-singh was to _not_ do what 
draft-sgundave does, in order to leave proper place for draft-sgundave.

Another differentiator is draft-singh seems to rely more on DHCP. 
Draft-sgundave assumes more RA stateless.  Can draft-singh do more RA 
and draft-sgundave do more DHCP?  Yes, both can do, we can do that too.

Seeing one as base and another as extension is not a feasible route, 
because it has been made apparent several times that all technical 
suggestion made as improvement turned into new text into draft-sgundave. 
  That was done as search for support, which is fine.  But once support 
is there people should understand that support is a bidirectional path, 
not unidirectional.

Alex

---

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 15:34:17 -0500

Kuntal, 

Please find inline. 

Regards,
Ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chowdhury, Kuntal [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 7:16 PM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; Basavaraj Patil; Alexandru Petrescu; Hidetoshi
Yokota
Cc: [email-masked]

Ajoy,

I don't think we have to speculate how the SDOs will eventually use
pmip6 protocol in their architectures. The base pmip6 protocol spec
should focus on protocol details as much as possible. 

Ajoy-> We need not speculate, but we should definitely look at what has
been done so far in various SDOs and align our work accordingly. 

The SDO specific adaptation of pmip6 should be discussed in respective
SDOs.

Ajoy-> My comment was not about SDO specific adaptation. Rather I was
commenting about fundamental protocol design issues that 
we have to consider while designing PMIPv6 based solution. For example,
if we allow bearer plane and control separation in 
PMIPv6 draft, we will be able to achieve complete re-use of MIPv6 HA
functionality without requiring timestamp extension etc. 
This assumption greatly simplifies protocol design. 

-Kuntal

drafts

come
impacted.

don't
3years
to

the
the

---

From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:05:58 +0900

Hi Vidya,

I support Sri's draft as a base netlmm protocol.
This draft re-uses several features of existing specification.
I have some comments on this draft-sgundave, but I will pose these in  
separate mail.
This thread goes too long:-)

The draft-singh is also interesting, but it requires more updates to  
complete the netlmm spec.
Specially it assumes context transfer between MAGs. There are not  
much details on this point.

It seems IPv4 support is not originally considered in the netlmm WG.
However, I believe IPv4 support in the access network (i.e. IPv4  
capability on MAG) is somehow important for netlmm deployment,
while the IPv4 support to MNs may be left as a future work. This is  
another reason to support Sri's draft.

regards,
ryuji

On 2007/03/06, at 6:33, Narayanan, Vidya wrote:

> have

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 15:09:32 +0100

RYUJI WAKIKAWA wrote:
> Specially it assumes context transfer between MAGs. There are not much 
> details on this point.
> 

Ryuji, can we separate the IPv4 discussion out of  discussion of any 
PMIPv6 draft?

Because we should discuss first whether the Charter should contain IPv4 
or not, and what is the associated IPv4 Problem Statement.

Currently the Charter excludes IPv4 in a very explicit way.  And there's 
another personal draft with problem statement specifically for IPv4.

What do you think: should the Charter include IPv4 work?

Shouldn't we get consensus on IPv4 before having it in _any_ draft?

Alex

---

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:46:45 -0500

Hi, ryuji, 

Please find inline comments. 

Regards,
Ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:06 AM
To: Narayanan, Vidya
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption

Hi Vidya,

Ajoy-> Can you please clarify what do you mean by existing
specification? Are you are referring to MIPv6 RFC? 
If yes, I would like to point to you that draft-gundave is proposing
several extensions (e.g., timestamp) to base MIPv6 RFC.  

Ajoy-> I would appreciate your specific comments. I think there was some
comment made on the list in this direction that was resolved in mailing
list 
discussion. Please refer to
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netlmm/current/msg01631.html.  

It seems IPv4 support is not originally considered in the netlmm WG.
However, I believe IPv4 support in the access network (i.e. IPv4
capability on MAG) is somehow important for netlmm deployment, while the
IPv4 support to MNs may be left as a future work. This is another reason
to support Sri's draft.

Ajoy-> IPv4 supports require charter change. I would like bring to your
attention that draft-singh also has some description of IPv4 support in 
appendix (E.2 IPV4 DATA TUNNELING INSIDE IPV6). We did not feel that
this is required in base draft, but this can be included in 
separate document if and when charter issues are resolved. 

regards,
ryuji

---

From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 01:15:00 +0900

Hi Alex,

I don't follow all your IPv4 discussions on the list.
What Sri's draft specify is based on DSMIP specification.
DSMIP is already implemented and tested.

In my understanding, supporting various tunnels between MAG and LMA  
is important.
Even if MN doesn't support IPv4, there is a case that MAG  locates  
only in IPv4 network.

You don't need to reply me, I will stop talking IPv4 here:-)

regards,
ryuji

On 2007/03/10, at 23:09, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

>> I have some comments on this draft-sgundave, but I will pose these  
>> in separate mail.
>> The draft-singh is also interesting, but it requires more updates  
>> to complete the netlmm spec.
>> while the IPv4 support to MNs may be left as a future work. This  
>> is another reason to support Sri's draft.
>
> Ryuji, can we separate the IPv4 discussion out of  discussion of  
> any PMIPv6 draft?
>
> Because we should discuss first whether the Charter should contain  
> IPv4 or not, and what is the associated IPv4 Problem Statement.
>
> Currently the Charter excludes IPv4 in a very explicit way.  And  
> there's another personal draft with problem statement specifically  
> for IPv4.
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:22:30 +0100

> DSMIP is already implemented and tested.

Which DSMIP is implemented and tested?  Because there are two.

As far as I know DS-MIPv6 still has unsolved issues in the MIP6 WG with 
the v4-mapped addresses.  Issue 73 in MIP6 WG.

Then there's DS-MIPv4 too, in the MIP4 Working Group.

> In my understanding, supporting various tunnels between MAG and LMA is 
> important.

Yes, supporting several types of tunnels between MAG and LMA is 
important.  What's that  got to do with IPv4?

> Even if MN doesn't support IPv4, there is a case that MAG  locates only 
> in IPv4 network.
> 

I didn't reply to you, I reply to you and the list.  If you feel it's 
not necessary to follow-up that's fine :-)

I signal you that there is an IPv4 Problem Statement draft, personal 
submission.  You're free to ignore, but there it is.

Alex

>> there's another personal draft with problem statement specifically for 
>> IPv4.
>>

---

From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 01:37:56 +0900

Hi Ajoy,

I am currently catching up netlmm work for this IETF meetings.
I didn't check the mail which you pointed.

It's true that the Sri's draft made modification to the RFC3775, but  
this is necessary modification to support netlmm.
draft-sgundave is consistent to use MH as a transport protocol and  
follows extensions defined in MIP6 WG such as DSMIP.
I don't see the reasonable reason to use SCTP as a transport.

I still support for draft-sgundave.
In overall, the spec. is more completed in terms of implementations  
capability, security point, and mobility signaling compatibility, etc..

ryuji

On 2007/03/11, at 0:46, Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 wrote:

> while the

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:06:56 +0100

> this is necessary modification to support netlmm.

Yes.

> follows extensions defined in MIP6 WG such as DSMIP.

Too early for DSMIP in PMIPv6 and there are alternatives for that. 
Check IPv6 Transition Mechanisms.

> I don't see the reasonable reason to use SCTP as a transport.

I can see a big need for it.  Which SDOs communicated needs for this WG? 
  What kind of data do they transport?  Is that voice?  Voice over IP?

Check RFC4168 "The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) as a 
Transport for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)"

> capability, security point, and mobility signaling compatibility, etc..

Is one sure that one can compare implementation maturity levels?  At 
this point in time.

Alex

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:25:28 -0800

> ---Original Message-----
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:38 AM
> To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1
> Cc: [email-masked]

Ryuji,

Thanks for supporting the draft and your comments.

Regards
Sri

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:40:11 -0800

> about netlmm4, so people are suggesting that it is a feature/ 
> extension and it should be discussed separately.
>   IPv6 support discussion belongs to the slot given to one of 
> the drafts.
>   MN ID requirements agenda item has already been contested.
>   Here goes 105 minutes of the agenda.
>   
> Kind regards,
>  
> Behcet
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2007 3:50:57 PM
> Subject: [netlmm] Draft Agenda for NETLMM at IETF68
> 
> 
> Draft agenda
> 
> Network-based Local Mobility Management (NetLMM)
> 
> TUESDAY, March 20, 2007
> 0900-1130 Morning Session
> 
> Chairs: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>; Vidya 
> Narayanan <[email-masked]>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1. Agenda review, Blue sheets and volunteers for taking notes 
> and Jabber scribe (5 Mins)
> 
> 2. WG status (5 Mins)
> 
> 3. draft-singh-netlmm-protocol - (Ajoy - 15 mins)
> 
> 4. draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6 - (Sri - 15mins)
> 
> 4. MN-AR interface draft (Julien - 10 mins)
> 
> 5. PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions    (Gerardo - 30 mins) (Presentation:
> 5-10mins; Discussion: 20 mins)
> 
> 6. IPv6 support - summary of link local and global addressing 
> support (TBD - 15 mins) (Presentation: 5 mins; Discussion: 10 mins)
> 
> 7. IPv4 support in PMIPv6   (Raj - 30 mins) (Presentation: 5-10mins;
> Discussion: 20 mins)
> 
> 8. MN ID requirements for PMIPv6 (TBD - 15 mins)
> 
> 9. Next Steps
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:40:11 -0800

Folks,
Please let people express their opinions on the consensus call without
making this an extended debate between the documents. The consensus call
is meant to gather WG member preferences and input on any open issues,
not to create an ongoing debate on whether or not one or both of the
documents can cover what it currently doesn't cover. 

Please note that this style of ongoing debates will only make it harder
to reach any consensus. If we cannot reach consensus, we cannot move
forward. We will continue to miss our milestones and that is not in the
best interest of the WG. So, please don't make this a personal debate or
a debate of nits between documents. 

Regards,
Vidya

ILETIME=[AFBC4200:01C7635C]

Folks,
Please let people express their opinions on the consensus call without
making this an extended debate between the documents. The consensus call
is meant to gather WG member preferences and input on any open issues,
not to create an ongoing debate on whether or not one or both of the
documents can cover what it currently doesn't cover. 

Please note that this style of ongoing debates will only make it harder
to reach any consensus. If we cannot reach consensus, we cannot move
forward. We will continue to miss our milestones and that is not in the
best interest of the WG. So, please don't make this a personal debate or
a debate of nits between documents. 

Regards,
Vidya

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:42:00 +0100

> a debate of nits between documents. 

Vidya, I will continue to answer to every other statement in this 
Working Group that is:

-ignoring the current Charter (check IPv4).
-backed by an INFORMATIONAL SDO statement.

You're free to try to retire my posting rights.  There's a procedure for 
that and I'll bring it to its end.

Alex

---

From: Katsutoshi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:53:50 +0900

Hi Vidya, 

I support draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 to be adopted as the WG
document.

As we spent too many hours for discussing about "way forward", I do
believe now is the time to select one document only as "basement" and we
can add/reduce functionaries according to the WG consensus. The
selection shall not be considered as excluding any modification nor
inclusion of functionality that other draft discusses.

For this reason, I don't believe trying to merge the documents, before
selecting any WG document for basement, is efficient, and sound just
lengthen the endless discussion.

I won't talk about the SDO things, From [email-masked] Mon Mar 12 02:54:19 2007
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:53:50 +0900
From: Katsutoshi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus Call on WG Document Adoption
To: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

Hi Vidya, 

I support draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 to be adopted as the WG
document.

As we spent too many hours for discussing about "way forward", I do
believe now is the time to select one document only as "basement" and we
can add/reduce functionaries according to the WG consensus. The
selection shall not be considered as excluding any modification nor
inclusion of functionality that other draft discusses.

For this reason, I don't believe trying to merge the documents, before
selecting any WG document for basement, is efficient, and sound just
lengthen the endless discussion.

I won't talk about the SDO things, but it is clear that we have many
potential customers and would be best to make clear progress, i.e.
decision on WG doc, at the March meeting, otherwise we might end up with
specifying protocol for nobody.

Katsutoshi,

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:33:42 -0800

> presentation of the drafts at the NETLMM meeting in Prague before you

Regards,
Katsutoshi

---

From: "Gerardo Giaretta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:54:22 +0100

Hi Chairs,

I support draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 as a starting point for the
WG document.

As you mention, this is a starting point document and as a WG we still
are able to do any addition or modification to the draft if needed.

Thanks,
--Gerardo

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:08:26 +0100

Hi all, 

I support draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6 as a WG document.

Ciao
Hannes

> 2007. If you

---

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:34:37 +0100

I support taking draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 as a starting point
for the WG document.

marco

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:04:14 +0200

I would urge people to not employ the "merge" or the "add all functions
that people requested" approaches in this process.

The Netlmm base protocol will be most useful it is comes out of the IETF
in a timely manner. There are lots of interesting extensions but adding
them at this stage poses a significant risk of delay either in the WG or
in the Last Call or IESG phases. In particular, adding more functions
increases the risk that we find a significant problem later in the process.

Pick one draft, and make sure that during the WG process leading to WGLC
later you improve the draft as much as you can, including implementing
the WG consensus on specific technical questions, review to make sure it
has no extra parts, making hard decisions on what is in base what is in
an extension, etc.

Jari

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:25:12 +0200

Cheers,
	Jouni

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:15:06 +0200

Regards,
Markku

>From: ext Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 05 March, 2007 23:34
>To: [email-masked]
>not be considered final by any means. If you think one or both 
>these documents still have any major open issues, please state 
>those issues on the list as well. 
>

---

From: "Ali Irfan-FIA225" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:33:15 -0000

I support using draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01 as a starting point. 
Also support statements made that quick resolution of key issues of the
protocol will be beneficial in applicability of standrad in different
SDOs.

Regards
Irfan 

> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 11:34 PM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: "Dham Richa-a22423" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:46:59 +0800

I support using draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01 
for adoption as base WG document. 

Regards,
-Richa

---

From: Christophe Janneteau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:05:35 +0100

Hi,

I support adoption of draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01 as a starting point
for the WG document.

This draft has the unique advantage to provide netlmm function without
requiring any modification to standard (RFC3775) Home Agent and
signaling. IMHO, this would ease (and accelerate) implementation and
deployment of a netlmm solution.

It has also the unique advantage of allowing immediate incorporation in
netlmm of any MIPv6 extension being defined in other working groups,
without requiring any additional standardization effort.

Christophe.

---

From: "SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:28:10 +0100

Hi,

I support using draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-02 as a WG document.

Whatever the result of the call, I would like to see the standalone PMIP
client model taken into account. 

Regards,
Pierrick

have
> Please send an email stating your preference by 23th March, 2007. If
you

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:00:44 +0100

> and as such is relocated all the time.

Let me get more in detail into this.

Draft-singh has a clear intent of using separation of forwarding and
data paths.  Or at least the intention so is.  Under a certain
interpretation this means that there's a special entity - PMIP Client -
that resides elsewhere than on the AR.  And so there are 3 types of
entities: MAGs, PMIP Clients and LMAs.

With this in mind, I'm trying to read draft-sgundave, and find features
of this kind, and try to compare to draft-singh.

Here is text in sgundave that makes me think that MAG may be relocated.
If there's other text - please point me to it.  If I identified wrongly,
please correct, sorry for misunderstanding.

> In Proxy Mobile IPv6, the Proxy Binding Update messages that the 
> local mobility anchor receives on behalf of a specific mobile node 
> may not be from the same mobile access gateway as the previously 
> received message.

Equating 'message' with P-BU, this reads as if one MAG may send a P-BU
on behalf of a MN under another MAG (on behalf on behalf of MN, or proxy
proxy BU).  In my reading.  Maybe this was not the intention.  Just
trying to find out.

> o  [MAG] is responsible for setting up the data path for enabling the
>  mobile node to use its home address for communication from the 
> access link.

This says 'data path'.  Which is usual in the forwarding/data path
distinction, where the PMIP Client Relocation was presented.

Otherwise few people say 'data path' when they mean Mobile IP IPinIP
encapsulation, they mostly say 'forwarding path'.  Or I haven't heard it
so often.

> However, on the shared links supporting multiple mobile nodes with 
> different home prefixes, there is some interaction required between 
> the [DHCP] relay agent and the mobile access gateway

Since usually a DHCP Relay Agent sits on the Access Router and the
Mobile Access Gateway too, this sounds as if the Mobile Access Gateway
and the Access Router are separated boxes.  But I'm not sure.

> The Proxy Registration Flag is set to indicate to the local mobility
>  anchor that the Binding Update is from a mobile access gateway
> acting as a proxy mobility agent.

This _may_ mean that the MAG can in some cases _not_ act as a proxy
mobility agent.  But I'm not sure.

> A Binding Acknowledgment message that is sent by the mobile access 
> gateway is also referred to as "Proxy Binding Acknowledgement".

So a Mobile Access Gateway too sends a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (in
addition to the LMA doing this).  It may mean that there can be another
box doing LMA functionality, in which case we'd talk about PMA Server
relocation (instead of client).  But not sure.

Julien Laganier said:
>  elsewhere than on the data path. However I think that scenario can
> be supported with minor modifications: The PMIP client can be placed

That may make sense to me, but we'd need to be precise in the
description, and in the need.  I can try to formulate that need in terms
of offering higher quality handovers with less security roundtrips.  But
separate from this topic.

Alex

---

From: "Hui Deng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:39:03 +0100

I am in favor of combining MAG and Proxy Mobile Client together, so
would like to support taking draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 as a
starting point for the WG document.

-Hui

---

From: "Sangjin Jeong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 06:38:52 +0100

Hi Vidya,

I support draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 to be adopted as a
starting point for the WG document.

Regards,
Sangjin

---

From: "Casati, Alessio \(Alessio\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:53:53 +0100

I would like to support taking draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 
as a starting point for the WG document.

Regards
Alessio

---

From: Ashutosh Dutta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:06:50 -0400

Dear Chairs,
              I think both the drafts, draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 
and draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-02 in their current form, demonstrate 
certain distinct features that are worth considering for a well defined 
NETLMM protocol. It is also needless to say that both the drafts, 
although at the early stage, have some overlapping ideas since they all 
try to solve the same problem.

However, I am not sure  about the logistics of harmonizing the ideas 
from both the drafts that will help to create a document that addresses 
all the issues NETLMM WG should consider for further progress leading to 
a successful deployment in a timely manner.

Do we need to keep in mind about the requirement from other SODs while 
coming up with the NETLMM protocol?

Regards
Ashutosh

---

From: "Narvaez, Paolo \(Paolo\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:31:56 -0500

I support draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 to be used as the baseline WG
document for PMIPv6.

Paolo

> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 4:34 PM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: "Jong-Hyouk Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:44:55 +0900

Dear all.

As Narvaez supports, I also support draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 to be a
baseline WG document for PMIPv6.

Cheers.

-- 
Internet Management Technology Lab, Sungkyunkwan University.
Jong-Hyouk Lee.

#email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com
#webpage: http://www.hurryon.org

-- 
Internet Management Technology Lab, Sungkyunkwan University.
Jong-Hyouk Lee.

#email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com
#webpage: http://www.hurryon.org
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: "NJEDJOU Eric RD-RESA-REN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:35:03 +0200

Hi all,

Couple thought on the IETF handling of external SDOs inputs following
NETLMM WG meeting:

1) It seems to me that there is an infinite "come and go" message on the
issue of external SDOs impact on the design of mobility proocols at
IETF. For those who remember, SEAMBOY  was set into place at IETF
because there was a clear will to adapt MIP and its derivations to
architecture envrironnments as defined by SDOs as 3GPP, 3GPP2. I
hereunder quote the then SEAMOBY charter

"Further, Standards Defining Organizations (SDOs) that work on wireless,
such as 3GPP, 3GPP2, IEEE and others, are hoping that the IETF will be
able to provide a set of protocols that will enable them to provide
real-time services over an IP infrastructure, and, along with Mobile IP,
SeaMoby is expected to provide such protocols. Furthermore, the
protocols developed by the Seamoby Working Group must allow for
real-time services to work with minimal disruption across heterogeneous
wireless, and wired, technologies.
It is expected that SDOs working on wireless technologies will provide
their input into the WG during the requirements gathering and protocol
design phase."

Therefore, contrary to what i heard form the chairs in Prague, the IETF
has already considered such activtiy in the past. Even though for the
specific case of Seamoby, those external inputs were not clear enough
(the problem was poorly identified at the time), which lead to the
working group producing non-usable standards.

2) One contradiction on the PMIPv6 specific case is that PMIPv6 was
brought back to the table as a replacement of the NETLMM design team
protocol with one the arguments being that the Wimax Forum and/or 3GPP2
were considering  PMIPv6 for IP Mobility. 

3) Let's be in the case where the IETF designs protocols on its own,
system considerations far aside. What happens then? These protocols do
not get deployed (HMIP, FMIP...) nor used in other system
specifications. And the reason for this is that they fail to fit
architecture constraints and deployment models. Theses protocols are
still on the floor at IETF irrespective of that constatation. What and
whom are they meant fot??? I am not sure of the use of a protocol
designed just for the sake of designing a protocol.

Eric