Subject: [NSIS] Change proposal for Mobility Applicability draft

From: Takako Sanda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:24:20 +0900

Dear all,

After the last IETF meeting, authors of NSIS Mobility Applicability
draft (draft-ietf-nsis-applicability-mobility-signaling-05.txt) have
discussed how the draft should be cleaned up and which topics are still
missing.

The followings are discussion result for proposed changes. Please review
them and give your comments by 5th Jan 2007. If no discussion has been made,
authors will start editing text based on the decision below.

1. Section 4 and 5 ("Basic Operations for Mobility Support" and
"Applicability Statement") should be divided into two parts and
rewritten:-

  o "Main" part, which is focusing on examples and describing how
  mobility is handled by the NSIS protocols. Topics here will be 
  route change handling and NSIS interwork with MIP v4/v6 
  (including tunneling management). This part must not include 
  "should work" or "may work" sort of description.

  o "Further Study" part, which introduces summary of potential
  issues and possible approaches for other topics. These topics are
  out-of-scope for discussing details, such as interwork with other
  mobility protocols, multihoming, peer failure (and frequent
  path change, may be)

2. Description of mobility objects should be removed.

3. Security part needs to be cleaned up. Concrete change plan is still
under discussions.

4. As for new open issue, NAT/FW should be raised
    "If a MN moves, IP addresses and routing change so that the 
    packets enter and leave the network through a new NAT/FW node.
    We need to open the old ports on this new NAT/FW node, and remove
    the ones on the previous NAT/FW."
  How would this work in real like?
  The main difference for the NAT/FW work with respect is two-fold:
   * We only use e2e refreshes. This makes things easier. 
   * Most firewalls drop packets if a pinhole does not exist. 
  We need to capture these two things.

5. Detailed Operations in current texts should be moved to Appendix or
discussed in separate draft.

6. Section 3 (Problem Statement) may need to be cleaned up based on 
changes in main body.

BR,
Takako

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

---

From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:57:31 +0100

Dear all,

Thanks to the authors for pushing this forward on time!

Please review the proposed changes and comment on them whether they are
are to the WG or not.

Do send your comments (good, bad, etc) to the mailing list by January
8th latest (to fit with the holiday schedules :). By January 8th we
should have a clear view if the proposed changes can go in the draft.

Thanks,

  Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Takako Sanda [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Xiaoming Fu; Seong-Ho Jeong; Sung-Hyuck Lee; Jukka MJ Manner; Hannes
Tschofenig
Subject: [NSIS] Change proposal for Mobility Applicability draft

Dear all,

The followings are discussion result for proposed changes. Please review
them and give your comments by 5th Jan 2007. If no discussion has been
made, authors will start editing text based on the decision below.

BR,
Takako

---

From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:06:10 +0100

(chair's hat off)

Hi all,

Here are my comments:   

> Cc: Xiaoming Fu; Seong-Ho Jeong; Sung-Hyuck Lee; Jukka MJ 
> Manner; Hannes Tschofenig
> After the last IETF meeting, authors of NSIS Mobility 
> Applicability draft 
> (draft-ietf-nsis-applicability-mobility-signaling-05.txt) 
> have discussed how the draft should be cleaned up and which 
> topics are still missing.
> 
> The followings are discussion result for proposed changes. 
> Please review them and give your comments by 5th Jan 2007. If 
> no discussion has been made, authors will start editing text 
> based on the decision below.
> 
> 
> 1. Section 4 and 5 ("Basic Operations for Mobility Support" 
> and "Applicability Statement") should be divided into two parts and
> rewritten:-
> 

I see in the same way. Probably it would also be good to talk with
Charles and Henning (i.e., the authors of NSIS Operation Over IP
Tunnels) about the tunnel management. 

>   mobility protocols, multihoming, peer failure (and frequent

Agreed and really stay brief, i.e., not exploring it too much.

> 2. Description of mobility objects should be removed.

Yes, indeed. Since it is anyway not include in GIST and not required. 

> 
> 3. Security part needs to be cleaned up. Concrete change plan 
> is still under discussions.

Do you have any plans here in general?

>   We need to capture these two things.

The protocol operations for the NATFW NSLP are quite easy but I see the
need for more carefully considerations wrt mobility. Hannes and I will
take care about it. I have just created a entry in the NATFW issue
tracker:

https://kobe.netlab.nec.de/roundup/nsis-natfw-nslp/issue87

> 
> 5. Detailed Operations in current texts should be moved to 
> Appendix or discussed in separate draft.

What do you refer to with "Detailed Operations"?

Thanks!

  Martin

> 
> 6. Section 3 (Problem Statement) may need to be cleaned up 
> based on changes in main body.
> 
> BR,
> Takako
> 
>

---

From: Takako Sanda <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:28:42 +0900

Hi Martin and all,

Thank you for your comments. Please see my comments in line.

cheers,
Takako

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:06:10 +0100

> Tunnels) about the tunnel management. 

This is good idea.

> Do you have any plans here in general?

Authors just discussed that we would not be able to leave the section as
is, because the section just outlined a number of options and their
pros/cons.

Discussions among authors/WG members for getting conclusion should be
necessary.

> https://kobe.netlab.nec.de/roundup/nsis-natfw-nslp/issue87

Appreciated!

> What do you refer to with "Detailed Operations"?

Honestly, authors have not defined actual scope of detailed operations
yet.
IMO, for example, when we make summary for each topic in "Further Study"
part, remaining texts can be categorized as "detailed operations", such
as concrete signaling flows to find the best access router in multihoming
case.