Subject: [DMM] IETF#90 DMM agenda update

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:49:43 +0300

Folks,

The agenda has been slightly updated (shuffling around the slots and 
arranging more time to the charter/next steps discussion). Some 
presenters are affected slightly (-5 minutes). see 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/agenda/agenda-90-dmm

Regarding the re-chartering and the next steps. We have a tight deadline 
to meet if we want to ship the new charter text to the next IESG 
telechat. Brian will reveal the gory details of the expected 
re-chartering process and timelines.

We are also supposed to come up (again) with a rought agreement of the 
deployment architecture(s) that DMM "functional elements" map into. This 
will be discussed as a part of the re-chartering slot and recapping the 
discussions we had earlier.

We are also supposed to come up with a rough agreement how to progress 
from now on. This could mean (note the conditionality here) a series of 
interim meetings and setting up small groups (or design teams) to work 
on the initial set of the solution space drafts. We need to step out of 
the "progress every second IETF meeting" mode ;)

Also keep in mind that the start of the new work poses some 
serialization whether we want or now: first stabilize charter & reach 
rough consensus on the deployment models/functional elements. These can 
be done in parallel. Note that rough consensus does not mean a ready 
spec or spec at all. Second execute with the solutions space.. the 
deployment models work might benefit from having a slight heads up 
before other drafts. These can be done in parallel, though. As a 
reminder, the charter may change on the route before it gets approved 
but we can do the opportunistic thing and start working as if the 
charter were already "approved" when the WG ships it.

- Jouni & Dapeng

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:58:12 -0400

> the "progress every second IETF meeting" mode ;)

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html

> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:08:56 -0500

Hi Brian,

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Brian Haberman
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>> deployment architecture(s) that DMM "functional elements" map into.

Sorry but I don't understand why we have to work on deployment architectures?

I don't remember any such work before in IP mobility. Is there any RFC
that can educate me on this?

I understand that some architecture work is needed. As far as I know
almost all solution drafts have an architecture.
Wouldn't that be enough?

Kind regards,

Behcet

>This

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:16:31 +0000

Behcet,

Check some of the documents in MPLS/Routing areas.

DMM to most part is about deployment. Without bringing the deployment
aspects, documenting DMM solutions will be immature.

Sri

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:36:46 -0500

Hi Sri,

> Check some of the documents in MPLS/Routing areas.

Sorry, I am familiar with those areas, they are not in Intarea :-).

> aspects, documenting DMM solutions will be immature.

I am looking at this Softwire document:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-04

This document is looking into models on how MAP can be deployed on
large-scale carrier networks.

But the catch is that MAP which is the solution protocol is already
defined in a different document by Softwire.

So the deployment models IF NEEDED follows the solution selection process.

May I suggest you to please come up with a draft including your ideas
on the architecture and solution and have it discussed like any other
protocol proposals? You may wish to add any deployment concerns there
in your draft if you like.

Also any architecture work will have implications on the solution and
if they are done at the WG level that practically means that a lot of
bias on the solutions which are already proposed will be imposed. I
don't think that is what the WG wants to do.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:48:40 +0000

Alternatively, you capture the deployment models and then identify the
solution gaps or solutions that meet the goals ...

> Sorry, I am familiar with those areas, they are not in Intarea :-).

RFC-6674; A solution driven by a deployment requirement.

Sri

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:56:16 -0500

You are talking about Gateway Initiated DS-Lite (RFC 6674).

That is a solution based on DS-Lite, i.e. a variation of DS-Lite or RFC 6333.

Again, my plea to you, please come up with your draft and let WG see
what you propose.

That is the right way to go.

Behcet

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:00:03 +0000

I think you are mixing the topics here.

Any case, I don't have plans to write one ..

Sri

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:04:24 -0500

> I think you are mixing the topics here.

I am not sure who?
How can you talk about deployment without having a solution?
Deployment where?

> Any case, I don't have plans to write one ..

I know that and that's why I kept asking, just in case you might
change your mind.

Maybe you can write a draft evaluating existing proposals from your
"architecture" and your "deployment" point of view.

Behcet

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:10:17 +0000

Exactly... this is why DMM call#5 was devoted to NG-POP... Moreover, we had a lot of discussions regarding architecture from the very beginning of DMM in order to justify the effort and I think these discussions should be captured... 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : dmm [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Sri Gundavelli
>(sgundave)
>Envoyé : mardi 22 juillet 2014 18:49
>À : [email-masked]
>Cc : [email-masked]
>Objet : Re: [DMM] IETF#90 DMM agenda update
>

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:13:05 +0000

>De : dmm [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Behcet Sarikaya
>Envoyé : mardi 22 juillet 2014 19:04
>À : Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
>Cc : [email-masked]
>I know that and that's why I kept asking, just in case you might change your
>mind.
>

Worth to be considered IMHO: draft-liu-dmm-deployment-scenario

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:36:00 +0200

Thanks Pierrick for the pointer!
And FWIW also Marcos draft-liebsch-dmm-framework-03 addresses deployment and architecture aspects for evaluating various approaches
BR
Dirk
-----Original Message-----
From: dmm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Mittwoch, 23. Juli 2014 10:13
To: [email-masked]; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF#90 DMM agenda update

>Envoyé : mardi 22 juillet 2014 19:04 À : Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) Cc : 
>[email-masked] Objet : Re: [DMM] IETF#90 DMM agenda update
>
>I know that and that's why I kept asking, just in case you might change 
>your mind.
>

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:40:14 -0500

I am not against any work which is based on an existing draft. I spoke
against having a long presentation and there is no draft.

Another point here is, yesterday I discussed with Marco on this. Any
architecture and so called deployment proposal has a sense of solution
in it. I don't buy the argument that the architecture is generic and
that the deployment is generic.
At this point in time there is no such thing. Such proposals represent
the authors solution approach.They are reading other solution
proposals and they don't like some aspects in those solution drafts
and they want to present some alternative approaches.

So, as I said before, Marco, Sri, Pierrick, if there are any others,
are free to write drafts making it clear that in the draft they are
talking about their own solution. There is nothing wrong with it.

I hope this makes my point clear.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:52:07 +0000

So, what is your point ? Can we elevate the discussion to some decent
levels and focus on technicals ?

What we are discussing is an architectural approach that addresses DMM
Requirements; This is what we discussed with number of people and have
agreements. Now we are discussing with a larger group.

Like any other other proposal, this does not have a WG status and is only
a proposal. Nothing in the process requires I-D for discussion. I've done
many such presentations prior to publishing -00 version.

Sri

On 7/23/14 6:40 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> And FWIW also Marcos draft-liebsch-dmm-framework-03 addresses
>>deployment and architecture aspects for evaluating various approaches
>> BR
>> Dirk
>>_________________________________________________________________________
>>________________________________________________
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>>confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
>>exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par
>>erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les
>>pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles
>>d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
>>altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
>>information that may be protected by law; they should not be
>>distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:16:35 -0500

Hi Jouni,

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> arranging more time to the charter/next steps discussion). Some presenters
> are affected slightly (-5 minutes). see
> Regarding the re-chartering and the next steps. We have a tight deadline to
> meet if we want to ship the new charter text to the next IESG telechat.
> Brian will reveal the gory details of the expected re-chartering process and
> timelines.
>
> We are also supposed to come up with a rough agreement how to progress from
> now on. This could mean (note the conditionality here) a series of interim
> meetings and setting up small groups (or design teams) to work on the
> initial set of the solution space drafts. We need to step out of the
> "progress every second IETF meeting" mode ;)

Design teams?

Do you know about netlmm experience? I looked at netlmm WG pages on
tools.ietf.org. DT had a draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02

Please look at this protocol and compare with RFC 5213 which was the
final product of netlmm.

Some of you may remember, PMIPv6 proposal came in from nowhere and in
a historic WG meeting that proposal took over.

So my question is what guarantees that is the DT is going to produce
the right solution and why repeat the history again?

Regards,

Behcet

>
> Also keep in mind that the start of the new work poses some serialization
> whether we want or now: first stabilize charter & reach rough consensus on
> the deployment models/functional elements. These can be done in parallel.
> Note that rough consensus does not mean a ready spec or spec at all. Second
> execute with the solutions space.. the deployment models work might benefit
> from having a slight heads up before other drafts. These can be done in
> parallel, though. As a reminder, the charter may change on the route before
> it gets approved but we can do the opportunistic thing and start working as
> if the charter were already "approved" when the WG ships it.
>
> - Jouni & Dapeng
>

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:20:44 +0300

Behcet,

>> meetings and setting up small groups (or design teams) to work on the
                                         ^^^
> Design teams?

Exact form is still to be decided.

- Jouni

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:36:27 -0400

> the right solution and why repeat the history again?

Who said that *if* a DT is formed that its output is considered special?

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/design-team.html

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:49:43 -0500

> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/design-team.html

My point is that at this time in dmm I can not see any justification
for forming a design team to develop a solution or parts of a
solution.
We already have solutions and it seems like at least one of them is
implemented. I don't think it is reasonable to expect any deployment
now.
In view of this I am unable to see the need for some many items in the
proposed charter.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:54:49 -0400

> for forming a design team to develop a solution or parts of a

Jouni pointed out that the DT approach is just an option.