Subject: [multimob] New Charter proposal - draft for approval.

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:01:46 +0100

Here is the revised multimob charter that the WG Chairs have prepared 
based on the various inputs we have received. There are many small 
changes, but we think this process has improved the quality and clarity 
of the text. We both believe this is a strong Charter - we are now 
asking for notes of support, comments, issues, etc.

Please let us have all feedback by midnight 1st July 2009. We then plan 
to submit this for publication by our ADs.

Let us know your thoughts,

Behcet and Gorry

-- 

Multicast Mobility (multimob)

Chairs:
Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>

Internet Area (int) Directors:
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Advisor:
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Security Area Advisor:
Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>.

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
Subscribe online at: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

Description of Working Group

The Multicast mobility (multimob) will develop protocol extensions
and provide guidance for supporting IPv6 (and also IPv4)
multicast in a mobile environment. It will consider both source
specific multicast (SSM) and any source multicast (ASM) multicast
models. The scope of work will be limited to Proxy Mobile IPv6, MLD/IGMP
protocols and listener mobility. Work requiring modifications of
multicast routing protocols is out of scope.

Specific goals are:
- Specify PMIPv6 extensions to support IPv6 multicast including remote 
subscription and fast handover.
- Specify IGMP/MLD extensions methods for mobility.

The current Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) specification does not
explicitly define support for multicast. The WG will develop a solution
for explicit multicast support in PMIPv6. Basic support for multicast
with remote subscription will first be documented for PMIPv6 (with
no new message types or changes to the message parameters).  Remote
subscription is a mechanism by which a mobile node joins a multicast
group and receives multicast data forwarded via the local mobility
anchor. PMIPv6 basic multicast support will then be extended to support
optimizations to address the avalanche problem and fast handover.

IGMPv3/MLDv2 has been specified for wired networks with
shared links. Mobile nodes also have other needs (e.g.  entering a
dormant mode to conserve battery power, minimising the latency for
joining and leaving a group in support of movement).

The WG will assess existing solutions for group management, and
determine if these methods are sufficient in a mobile environment.
This will include recommending appropriate selection of timer values
and protocol parameters. If current methods are not sufficient, the WG
shall specify updates to existing protocols. It is a goal for the WG to
ensure backward compatibility with current implementations of
group management protocols. Any new IGMP/MLD message types
will be specified to optimize mobile performance. Since these
could be ignored, dropped or improperly forwarded by existing hosts,
switches, routers and proxies, these will not be necessary for proper
IGMP/MLD performance, albeit with a partial or total loss of the
intended performance optimization in deployments that do not fully
support them.

Future work, subject to approval, may study/evaluate whether
extensions are needed for the client-based mobility protocols
(Mobile IPv6 and Dual-Stack Mobile IPv6). Future work may also include
methods to allow a multi-homed mobile node to join multicast
groups and direct multicast flows to appropriate local interfaces.

In performing this work, the Multimob working group will work closely
with NETLMM working group and will coordinate work on IGMP/MLD
extensions with the MBONED working group.

GOALS and MILESTONES:

Six months:
- Submit a document explaining use of multicast in PMIPv6, for 
publication as an INFO/BCP RFC.
- Submit a document on how to tune MLD for mobility, for publication as 
an INFO/BCP RFC.

One year:
- Submit a document on extensions for multicast mobility in PMIPv6 as an 
EXP/PS RFC.
- Submit a document on IGMP/MLD extensions for multicast mobility as an 
EXP/PS RFC.

Recharter or close working group.

---

From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:13:17 +0200

Hi folks,

excellent charter: I guess this is going to be a really productive, fast 
working group :-)

Looking forward to working with you all!

Thomas

-- 

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:52:06 +0200 (CEST)

> Here is the revised multimob charter that the WG Chairs have
> prepared based on the various inputs we have received. There are
> many small changes, but we think this process has improved the
> quality and clarity of the text. We both believe this is a strong
> Charter - we are now asking for notes of support, comments, issues,
> etc.

I support this charter.
Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:05:55 -0700 (PDT)

----- Original Message ----
> From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:01:46 PM
> Subject: [multimob] New Charter proposal - draft for approval.
> 
> 
> Here is the revised multimob charter that the WG Chairs 

BoF Chairs

have prepared based on 
> the various inputs we have received. There are many small changes, but we think 
> this process has improved the quality and clarity of the text. We both believe 
> this is a strong Charter - we are now asking for notes of support, comments, 
> issues, etc.
> 
> Please let us have all feedback by midnight 1st July 2009. We then plan to 
> submit this for publication by our ADs.
> 
> Gorry Fairhurst 
> Behcet Sarikaya 
> Jari Arkko 
> Ralph Droms 
> Jari Arkko 
> Marshall Eubanks .
> - Submit a document explaining use of multicast in PMIPv6, for publication as an 
> INFO/BCP RFC.
> - Submit a document on how to tune MLD for mobility, for publication as an 
> INFO/BCP RFC.
> 
> One year:
> - Submit a document on extensions for multicast mobility in PMIPv6 as an EXP/PS 
> RFC.
> - Submit a document on IGMP/MLD extensions for multicast mobility as an EXP/PS 
> RFC.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multimob mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:40:36 +0100

Yes indeed - Behcet and I are only signed-up to chair the BoF, Jari will 
select the WG chairs, if a WG is actually formed !

Gorry

---

From: jouni korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:15:14 +0300

Hi Gorry, et al,

The new revision of the charter looks much better and addresses most  
of the comments I had. Some minor nits and suggestions inline. Again  
prefixed with [JiK]:

On Jun 29, 2009, at 10:01 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

> Please let us have all feedback by midnight 1st July 2009. We then  
> plan to submit this for publication by our ADs.
>
> - Specify PMIPv6 extensions to support IPv6 multicast including  
> remote subscription and fast handover.

[JiK] Scope it explicitly as "The current Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)  
base protocol specification as defined in RFC 5213.."

> no new message types or changes to the message parameters).  Remote

[JiK] I would reword a bit:
"The WG will work on solutions for multicast support in PMIPv6. A  
basic support for multicast with a remote subscription will first be  
documented. The basic support does not require any additions or  
changes to RFC 5213 specified message types and parameters, and  
assumes an unmodified mobile host."

I would think the "basic support" should explicitly be a minimal  
effort, and require no changes to mobile hosts.

> optimizations to address the avalanche problem and fast handover.

[JiK] How about:
"PMIPv6 multicast support may later be extended to support.."

I don't think the "basic support" needs to be extended.. rather the  
whole multicast support in PMIPv6 context may be extended with  
specific tweaks, and then (later) we can discuss whether those tweaks  
are PMIPv6 specific or generic to most wireless environments.

> joining and leaving a group in support of movement).

[JiK] The second sentence somehow seems to end too early.. I would  
write something like:
"Mobile nodes also have other needs that are specific to wireless  
networks and mobility."

> shall specify updates to existing protocols. It is a goal for the WG  

[JiK] updates or extensions?

> will be specified to optimize mobile performance. Since these

[JiK]  "Any new IGMP/MLD.." is supposed to mean what? Did you mean:
"New IGMP/MLD message types may be specified to optimize performance  
in mobile and wireless environments."

> - Submit a document on how to tune MLD for mobility, for publication  
> as an INFO/BCP RFC.
>
> One year:
> - Submit a document on extensions for multicast mobility in PMIPv6  
> as an EXP/PS RFC.
> - Submit a document on IGMP/MLD extensions for multicast mobility as  
> an EXP/PS RFC.
>

[JiK] Ok.

Cheers,
	Jouni

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:03:05 +0200

Dear all,
I support the new version of the charter - thanks to great work of all active contributors! 
I also find the comments by Jouni quite helpful to sharpen the focus and improve understanding.
If I could make a wish ... I would like to see the topic of 'source mobility' as 'nice to have' for very future work :-)

Best regards,
Dirk

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von jouni korhonen
Gesendet: Dienstag, 30. Juni 2009 10:15
An: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Betreff: Re: [multimob] New Charter proposal - draft for approval.

Hi Gorry, et al,

[JiK] How about:

[JiK] Ok.

Cheers,
	Jouni

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:22:41 +0200 (CEST)

Jouni,

> "PMIPv6 multicast support may later be extended to support.."

My personal thought is that the protocol extensions can be discussed
in parallel, and hence I may say "protocol extensions for PMIPv6
multicast will be also discussed to support optimization to address
the avalanche problems and fast handover." would be better.

What do you think?

Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda

---

From: jouni korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:13:39 +0300

Hi,

> the avalanche problems and fast handover." would be better.

Nothing against discussing issues while working on others. The current  
text just implied to me that extension will be done no matter what and  
I think that is not right. The text you propose is fine. May be  
changing "discussed" to studied or evaluated..

Cheers,
	Jouni

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:51:04 -0400

I like the suggested text changes below.

Regards
Marshall

On Jun 30, 2009, at 4:15 AM, jouni korhonen wrote:

> specific tweaks, and then (later) we can discuss whether those  
> tweaks are PMIPv6 specific or generic to most wireless environments.
>
>
>>
>>
>> - Submit a document on how to tune MLD for mobility, for  
>> - Submit a document on IGMP/MLD extensions for multicast mobility  
>> as an EXP/PS RFC.
>>

Regards
Marshall Eubanks
CEO / AmericaFree.TV

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:50:35 -0700 (PDT)

----- Original Message ----
> From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:22:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [multimob] New Charter proposal - draft for approval.
> 
> Jouni,
> 

We can discuss issues on the list. We don't have to write what will be discussed into the charter.

I hope you agree with this.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:08:59 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Hitoshi,

----- Original Message ----
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:45:55 PM
> > We can discuss issues on the list.. We don't have to write what will
> > be discussed into the charter.
> > 
> Hmm, you've still not understood what I mean...
> 
> Now in the charter,
> This means "we will provide protocol extension".

This is a goal or one of the goals, just like IGMP/MLD goal.

> 
> But in the charter, you said "PMIPv6 multicast support *may later* be
> extended". It means we may not propose protocol extension. It's
> contradictory..
> 
> Hence I proposed to say, "protocol extensions for PMIPv6 multicast
> will be also discussed to support optimization to address the
> avalanche problems and fast handover.
> Here, as Jouni said, if it's better to change the word "discussed" to
> "studied", it's no problem. You can change it.

Potocol extensions for PMIPv6 multicast will be studied  to support
optimizations to address the avalanche problem and fast handover.

What do you think about the above?

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:23:23 +0200 (CEST)

Behcet,

> What do you think about the above?

Thanks. Yes, it's good.

BTW (sorry, again, I hope this is the last comment), 
"Remote subscription is a mechanism by which a mobile node joins a
multicast group and receives multicast data forwarded via the local
mobility anchor."

Is this definition for "remote subscription" correct?
--
Hitoshi Asaeda

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:41:02 -0700 (PDT)

----- Original Message ----
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:23:23 PM

Yes, I think so, in the context of PMIPv6.
Do you have a better description?

Regards,

Behcet