Subject: [Dime] Tough IETF#70 Meeting

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:56:23 +0100

Hi all,

some of you have recognized it already: We have a short DIME slot and 
many presentations.

In order to have a fruitful meeting everyone is encouraged to read 
through the documents and to provide feedback already before the meeting.

For the main DIME WG items I do not expect a lot of discussion unless 
someone discovers new open issues. The Diameter Base protocol, the 
Diameter Mobile IPv6, 2 out of 3 Diameter QoS documents are either in 
WGLC or finished their WGLC already. The Diameter Applications Design 
Guidelines would certainly need more feedback to start a WGLC in December.

For the new items we are thinking about how to present the work in a 
reasonable fashion without jumping too much into the details. Here are 
the proposed agenda items:

(1) Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6
(2) Diameter Prefix Delegation
(3) Diameter Classifier
(4) Diameter extensions to base protocol facilitating development of
redundant applications, handling overload situations and improving
existing reliability procedures
(5) State Recovery
(6) Explicit routing
(7) Diameter Mobile IPv4 Revision
(8) Alternative Diameter Mobile IPv4
(9) Diameter Support for EAP Re-authentication Protocol
(10) Diameter MIBs

Out of these 10 items we have seen presentations of 
(1),(3),(4),(5),(6),(8), and (10) already. Only 3 new items.

It would be great if the authors of these documents could indicate the 
following:
* As a short summary: What is the suggested work about?
* How long is it going to take to finish the work?
* Is there a deadline for the work to be completed?
* Is your work needed by another SDO or WG?

Ciao
Hannes

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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:33:27 +0100

> * As a short summary: What is the suggested work about?

PMIP6 bootstrapping AAA support and MAG-AAA & LMA-AAA interfaces.
Should be a standards track document.

> * How long is it going to take to finish the work?

Ready for WGLC before 72nd IETF.

> * Is there a deadline for the work to be completed?

Before Nov 2008 ;-)

> * Is your work needed by another SDO or WG?

I know 3GPP rel-8 will be a potential "customer"..
maybe WiMAX Forum also.

Cheers,
	Jouni

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:39:09 +0100

Hi Jouni,

do you believe that your document is already pretty solid so that the 
deadlines are within reach?
The work obviously depends on the progress of Proxy Mobile IP in the 
NETLMM working group.
Are you positive that the work in NETLMM on the relevant documents can 
progress quick enough?

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:46:44 +0100

Hannes,

> Hi Jouni,
> 
> do you believe that your document is already pretty solid so 
> that the deadlines are within reach?

I am positive that 6-7 months should be enough to progress
them to a mature state and be ready for a WGLC. Of course
"issues" may show up. We could play safe and extent the
readiness deadline to 73rd IETF. 

> The work obviously depends on the progress of Proxy Mobile IP 
> in the NETLMM working group.
> Are you positive that the work in NETLMM on the relevant 
> documents can progress quick enough?

NETLMM specs should be in pretty OK shape to meet our
deadlines.

Cheers,
	Jouni

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:20:42 +0800

Dear Hannes and all,
Wrt (6) Explicit routing,
> Explicit routing becomes a WG item, and target for a standard 
> track, maybe an informal RFC.
> 
[Authors: Two IETF meetings.]
> * Is there a deadline for the work to be completed?
[Authors: Supposed June 2008.]
> * Is your work needed by another SDO or WG?
[Authors: It is needed by 3GPP and ETSI TISPAN potentially.
We seem to have hidden features like source routing and statefull
proxies already in specs that would potentially benefit
from explicit routing I-D.]

B. R.
Tina

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hannes Tschofenig 
  To: [email-masked] 
  Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 3:56 AM
  Subject: [Dime] Tough IETF#70 Meeting

  Hi all,

  Ciao
  Hannes

---

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:28:51 -0600

Hi Hannes,

My Apologies for responding a little late. US Thanksgiving holiday:)
Please see my comments/answers below.

Please let me know if you need further information.

Many thanks in advance! 

Regards,
Ahmad

> the details. Here are the proposed agenda items:
> 

> * As a short summary: What is the suggested work about?

Since both 3GPP2 and WiMAX relies on EAP for access authentication and
session keys derivation and distribution, the FA is not mandated to
authenticate MIP4 RRQ using MN-AAA AE (especially with WiMAX) and
consequently an FA trip to the AAA during MIP4 initial registration is
not mandatory. Here both SDOs 4G architecture require an interface
between the HA and AAA for MIP4 authorization and MIP4 registration keys
dynamic allocation. Current RFC4004 relies on RFC3957 for MIP4
Registration keys dynamic allocation using nonce and it is not needed as
per the aforementioned architectures. In addition to the above, a
performance issue is possible because of the coupling of initial MIP4
signaling with Diameter MIP4 Application signaling.

Having said the above, a new Diameter MIP4 Application inline with 3GPP2
and WiMAX 4G architectures is needed. This is needed officially and
supported by both SDOs.
 
> * How long is it going to take to finish the work?
Well, I guess the answer is: it depends. Right. But I believe if we
start right away after IETF70, we could adopt the document by IETF71 as
a wg doc and hopefully by IETF73 it should be have passed last call and
probably AD review:)

> * Is there a deadline for the work to be completed?

I would leave this for Avi to answer. I believe 3GPP2 is looking for the
timeframe of Aug. Sept 2008.

> * Is your work needed by another SDO or WG?

Absolutely. 3GPP2 and WiMAX have adopted high level drafts to that
extent.

---

From: "Ulf Bodin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:21:23 +0100

(5) State Recovery

Standardizing mechanisms for protocol aided state recovery. Such
mechanisms include e.g. backup server selection and timing of state
reconstruction after failure. The foreseen work is suggested to be based
partly on mechanisms defined in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bodin-dime-auditing-reqs-03.tx
t and partly on complementary mechnisms discussed on the dime list
towards draft-asveren-dime-state-recovery-01 (expired draft). 

Assuming that the suggested approach of basing this work on earlier
defined and discussed mechanisms it should take just a few meetings to
finish this work. 

No. 

Yes. This work is desired by ETSI TISPAN, which has issued an liasion
statement earlier this year on the topic. In addition ITU-T and 3GPP are
likely to find use for state recovery mechanisms provided by the IETF. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: den 22 november 2007 20:56
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] Tough IETF#70 Meeting

Hi all,

In order to have a fruitful meeting everyone is encouraged to read
through the documents and to provide feedback already before the
meeting.

Guidelines would certainly need more feedback to start a WGLC in
December.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: "Avi Lior" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:35:24 -0500

> I would leave this for Avi to answer. I believe 3GPP2 is 
> looking for the timeframe of Aug. Sept 2008.

Both WiMAX and 3GPP2 will need this by Q2, 2008.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:30:03 +0100

'need' like in approved, or published, or something else? 

Thanks, 

Dan

> From: Avi Lior [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:35 PM
> To: Ahmad Muhanna; Hannes Tschofenig; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: (8) [Dime] Tough IETF#70 Meeting
> 
> 
> >

---

From: "Avi Lior" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:44:08 -0500

In 3GPP2 the concept is approved.  Which means that it is going to be
standerdized.  Thus need mean required.
PP2 will develp the text and will publish something.  We hope that this
would be the same as IETF text.

In WiMAX, it may be the same but perhaps a little softer. But it has
been discussed and indication is that we need to move in that direction.
We havent gotten to approval yet.  I may be wrong hence CCing Alper.

> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: November 28, 2007 10:30 AM
> To: Avi Lior; Ahmad Muhanna; Hannes Tschofenig; [email-masked]

---

From: "Asveren, Tolga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:04:00 -0500

(We are planning to present only for the overload control mechanism, for
the other items I will try to get feedback/opinion after IETF70 via
e-mail and possibly conference call)

What is the suggested work about: 
It is about using overload status of Diameter nodes to loadbalance
traffic/prevent collapse due to overload. 

How long would it take to finish it:
~ 3 IETF meetings

Is there a deadline for the work:
No hard deadline. OTOH the earlier the better so that Diameter has an
overload control mechanism.

Is needed by other SDO/WG:
No. Needed by people which actually develop/deploy Diameter systems :-)

   Thanks,
   Tolga