Subject: [DMM] offlisted mails

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:03:07 -0500

Hi all,

If you send me an email related to dmm issues and you do not wish the
mail to be cc'ed or forwarded to the list,
please MARK your mail clearly on the subject line as offlisted.
You may wish to send the mail to 20 or so other people, I don't care.

Otherwise I may inadvertently cc it to the list.

Let this be known.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:42:28 +0200

I agree with this request from Behcet because it may give greater 
visibility.

I am interested about what is happening in each of the teams, although I 
also think they need a level of separation from the rest of the world.

What are the names of the work teams?
1 - Mobility Exposure
2 - Forwarding Path and Signalling Management
3 - Enhanced Anchor

Is this correct?

Alex

Le 23/10/2014 22:03, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>

---

From: Jouni <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:50:14 +0300

On Oct 24, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> I agree with this request from Behcet because it may give greater visibility.
> 
> I am interested about what is happening in each of the teams, although I also think they need a level of separation from the rest of the world.

Could you open a bit what you actually mean..

> 2 - Forwarding Path and Signalling Management

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg01623.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg01662.html

- Jouni

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:00:33 +0200

Le 24/10/2014 15:50, Jouni a écrit :
>> I am interested about what is happening in each of the teams,
>> although I also think they need a level of separation from the rest
>> of the world.
>
> Could you open a bit what you actually mean...

Jouni - with all due respect, I think it is you who needs to explain,
not me :-)

Anyways, here's why some more explanation is needed: the situation is
uncommon: 3 work teams (instead of 1 design team), frequent
audio-conferences w/o audiologs (instead of frequent emails logged).

If one tries, is one allowed to participate to the audioconferences?  Or 
are the work teams completely closed groups?

Does each of these groups also exchange private emails?  Do they use 
private email lists expanders instead of lists of names?  Are these 
emails archived?  Are these email exchanges open for reading now?

That said, I also agree that these groups may indeed need to be a little 
bit separated from each other and maybe from everybody else in order to 
focus.  But under no circumstances should they become unaccountable with 
respect to the WG at large.

>> What are the names of the work teams? 1 - Mobility Exposure 2 -
>> Forwarding Path and Signalling Management 3 - Enhanced Anchor
>>
>> Is this correct?
>

Thanks for the pointers, that's what I needed.  One would notice 
differences between what you think and what they think the names are.

"forwarding path and signaling.."
Forwarding Path and Signaling Management

"enhanced mobility anchoring.."
Enhanced Anchor

"exposing mobility state.."
Mobility Exposure

Which one is led by Sri?  That will help me understand this: 'Sri will 
take the lead for "Distributed mobility management deployment models and 
scenarios" work item.'

As you see - everything may be clear for you, but not for me :-)

Alex

>>> If you send me an email related to dmm issues and you do not wish
>>> the mail to be cc'ed or forwarded to the list, please MARK your
>>> mail clearly on the subject line as offlisted. You may wish to
>>> send the mail to 20 or so other people, I don't care.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list
>>> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list
>> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
>
>

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:17:45 -0400

Alex (and others),

On 10/24/14 11:00 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> But under no circumstances should they become unaccountable with

Please (re-)read what I posted about these teams a little while ago.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg01627.html

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:46:34 +0200

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg01627.html

Thank you for the pointer, I've read and re-read it at the time.

It increased my confidence to re-think again the same thing: we dont 
know whether these are Design Teams RFC2418, or something else.

I dont know what to expect as output.

I dont know what does this mean to the future of Mobile IP?

Are the 3 teams going to produce a competitor to Mobile IP?  Is Mobile 
IP becoming Historic?

Is Mobile IP Network Mobility taken into account in these teams?

Is Network Mobility considered from the start, or as an afterthought 
(like NEMO after Mobile IP, PrefixDelegationPMIP after PMIP)?

Are the earlier RFCs considered?

My remarks to the Charter proposal got rejected in this respect.

Alex

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:03:08 +0000

Hi Alex,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 9:47 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [DMM] offlisted mails - names of Work Teams
> 

Based on what I can tell, these three focused areas are still calling for an
IP mobility protocol. It could be based on MIP/PMIP, or on some new
protocol like AERO.

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: Jouni <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:51:24 +0300

Ok.. once more. 

> Thank you for the pointer, I've read and re-read it at the time.

Good.

> It increased my confidence to re-think again the same thing: we dont know whether these are Design Teams RFC2418, or something else.

Does it matter? We have 4 chartered work items. Chairs decided to delegate the work and called for volunteers to take a lead for running facilitator duties on each work item. If you want to call them design teams, you are free to do so. Chairs decided to call them as working team since construction of those is less formal than typically with design teams.

> I dont know what to expect as output.

Maybe re-re-read the pointed mails?
"The working teams, if they so manage, will produce the solution I-D(s). These documents will be equivalent to any individual produced I-D, though."

I personally hope, in a chair role, that working teams will produce solution I-Ds with a wide support behind each of them.

> I dont know what does this mean to the future of Mobile IP?

To be seen. Is that an issue? DMM WG still has the maintenance role of MIP.

The charter allows us to abandon MIP as a DMM solution if the WG so decides or the WG can decide to build everything on top of MIP. You are free to steer the public opinion & solution space by contributing. The whole process is contribution driven.

> Are the 3 teams going to produce a competitor to Mobile IP?  Is Mobile IP becoming Historic?

I have no idea. Why not joining to some of those working team calls or read the call minutes and find out? By participating and contributing you can steer the fate of MIP. For contribution you have two basic approaches: 1) write your own I-D (possibly co-authored with other people) or 2) join working teams, drive your ideas there and contribute to their possible output I-Ds.

> Is Mobile IP Network Mobility taken into account in these teams?

If you have concerns on the lack of visibility of nemo, join the team(s) and make sure your concerns get addressed.

> Is Network Mobility considered from the start, or as an afterthought (like NEMO after Mobile IP, PrefixDelegationPMIP after PMIP)?

Up to WG and working teams to decide. NEMO is not excluded in the charter.

> Are the earlier RFCs considered?

I would assume so but cannot speak for other people and their plans.

> My remarks to the Charter proposal got rejected in this respect.

Because NEMO was already part of the existing charter text.

- Jouni

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:56:13 +0100

Jouni, I reply here, but I will write separate emails.

Le 24/10/2014 19:51, Jouni a écrit :
>>>> But under no circumstances should they become unaccountable
>>>> with respect to the WG at large.
>>>
>> It increased my confidence to re-think again the same thing: we
>> dont know whether these are Design Teams RFC2418, or something
>> else.
>
> Does it matter? We have 4 chartered work items. Chairs decided to
> delegate the work and called for volunteers to take a lead for
> running facilitator duties on each work item. If you want to call
> them design teams, you are free to do so. Chairs decided to call
> them as working team since construction of those is less formal than
> typically with design teams.

Jouni - there are some particular aspects in which these teams work.

There are no emails to look at: everything seems to be happening on the
phone?  Are the audiologs available?

Audioconferences: I tried to participate to a doodle but the hours are
not clear about the time region.

It looks like a change in the traditional way work is being done here.

> Maybe re-re-read the pointed mails? "The working teams, if they so
> manage, will produce the solution I-D(s). These documents will be
> equivalent to any individual produced I-D, though."
>
> I personally hope, in a chair role, that working teams will produce
> solution I-Ds with a wide support behind each of them.

Let's hope for the best.

> To be seen. Is that an issue? DMM WG still has the maintenance role

I will reply separately about this but for now I can say that I am a bit
surprised by your statement.

> The charter allows us to abandon MIP as a DMM solution if the WG so
> decides or the WG can decide to build everything on top of MIP. You
> are free to steer the public opinion & solution space by
> contributing. The whole process is contribution driven.

Ok.

> I have no idea. Why not joining to some of those working team calls
> or read the call minutes and find out?

To join I need to use the right tools and Doodle in particular is not
very appropriate (what time zone is that?).

The minutes of the call are ok, and needed, and archived emails could
also help.

> By participating and contributing you can steer the fate of MIP. For
> contribution you have two basic approaches: 1) write your own I-D
> (possibly co-authored with other people) or 2) join working teams,
> drive your ideas there and contribute to their possible output I-Ds.
>
> If you have concerns on the lack of visibility of nemo, join the
> team(s) and make sure your concerns get addressed.

Should I join each one of the three teams?  That would be much effort 
necessary.

>> Is Network Mobility considered from the start, or as an
>> afterthought (like NEMO after Mobile IP, PrefixDelegationPMIP
>> after PMIP)?
>

The Charter currently does not say NEMO.

Alex

>>> Regards, Brian

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:03:33 -0400

I want to ask a question (or two) on this thread...

> phone?  Are the audiologs available?

How are these work teams any different than a group of people getting
together to write a draft?  You don't get the level of information you
are asking for above for individual drafts.

>> solution I-Ds with a wide support behind each of them.

Do you not believe the chairs' and AD's comments that drafts created by
these work teams will be treated like all other individual submissions?

> very appropriate (what time zone is that?).

Doodle polls generally present time in the viewer's timezone.  If not,
contact the person who posted the poll and ask them to verify the poll
configuration.  Do you have a better tool in mind for polling a group of
people on their availability?

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:36:10 +0100

> are asking for above for individual drafts.

In a sense yes, I agree.

In another sense, in my experience, groups of people getting together to 
write drafts are not mandated by anyone other than themselves.

> these work teams will be treated like all other individual submissions?

Yes, no, it's not that.

When I said let's hope for the best was hoping to see results with wide 
support behind.

> people on their availability?

I am happy you ask, thanks.

In general yes, viewer timezone should be displayed, provided one logs 
in.  Without logging in the timezone deduced out of the querying IP 
address is not reliable.  Logging in requires additional burden I am not 
ready to take in this context (find that login button among huge ads). 
Some employers forbid the use of doodle for obvious privacy reasons 
(publicly available accurate knoweledge of arbitrary people busy times 
is a bit risky).

Yes - polling a group of people on their availability can happen by 
email: state the date of audioconf, receive complains, propose another. 
  It's an itterative approach that puts the burden on the organizer 
rather than the participants - it's her or him who must collect and 
understand oppinions.

Yes - state a periodic audioconf, precisely same date.  Joins who can.

These methods may scale to a wider audience.

Alex

---

From: Jouni <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:42:14 +0200

> The Charter currently does not say NEMO.

The charter does mention mobile routers. That is nemo enough at least for me.
Besides, the first revision of the charter text was put into git on Mar 5, 2014.
You have had enough time to build more consensus to include "explicit NEMO
wording" than the last minute when everybody is rather reserved to do any
changes if just possible.

- Jouni

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:45:15 +0000

> From: dmm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jouni
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:42 AM
> To: Alexandru Petrescu
> Cc: [email-masked]

Or AERO, FWIW.

Thanks - Fred

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:55:55 +0100

> The charter does mention mobile routers. That is nemo enough at least for me.

Yes, no, sorry.

Network mobility is a concept where groups of endnodes move together.  A 
Mobile Router implementing Mobile IPv6 could be in charge of that 
router, conceptually.

In practical deployments, this MR ranges from a small pc to whole racks 
of blades in charge of that mobility.  Using or not using Mobile IP at all.

Network mobility is involving more than Mobile Routers, and some times 
no Mobile Routers at all.

> changes if just possible.

I agree with you.  I am sorry for too late expression.

I am as happy to know that Network mobility is _not_ considered by DMM 
(where should it then?) than it _is_.

Alex

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:03:18 +0000

Alex:

The maintenance work does include mobile router based deployments; The
work that we did in NETEXT, MEXT, MIP4 comes under that maintenance scope.
We don't have to split the hair in analyzing what is in the charter text.
If MIPv6 and PMIPv6 is included, why would NEMO be excluded ? Its the same
protocol. 

Unless we work on some totally unrelated stuff, I don't see a reason as
why a given extension will not be allowed. If the deployments need it and
the WG agrees, we better do that work here; IETF cannot just pull the
plug. General mobility and mobile networks related work is all in scope.
At least that's how I interpret the text.

Sri

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:12:46 +0100

> work that we did in NETEXT, MEXT, MIP4 comes under that maintenance scope.

But NETEXT, MEXT and MIP4 are all closed.  So where is the maintenance 
happenning now?

> If MIPv6 and PMIPv6 is included, why would NEMO be excluded ? Its the same

First, PMIPv6 does not include neither NEMO nor Network Mobility, it 
includes Prefix Delegation.  We discussed this extensively at the time 
and that's what we concluded.

NEMO (i.e. NEtwork MObility, check spelling) is an extension to Mobile 
IPv6 and Mobile IPv4 to realize network mobility.  This comes with a 
design requirement on the address architecture where one considers 
Prefixes in addition to Addresses.

One can tweak it in any way one wants, but still is that network 
mobility is an additional extension to the MIP6 space - does DMM do the 
same?

Network mobility questions to each of the groups:

Is Mobility Exposure happening in a Terminal about its own mobility?  Or 
is it exposing the states of each other terminals attached to a Mobile 
Router?  From the start or an afterthought?

Forwarding Path and Signalling Management: are the route updates 
concerning an address or a prefix?

Enhanced Anchor is anchoring a prefix or an address?

> At least that's how I interpret the text.

Well, one particular maintenance aspect of Mobile IPv6 is the "never 
delete tunnel" of a particular Mobile IPv6 implementation.  This is not 
a new feature, not a new protocol, it is a bug.

Should the bug be corrected?  Should implementations tweak around it? 
Should the spec be updated?  Because currently it does not work.

Alex

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:15:14 +0000

Alex - I give up :)

Regards
Sri

On 10/29/14 10:12 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>>>> Besides, the first revision of the charter text was put into git on
>>>>Mar
>>>> 5, 2014.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:17:25 +0100

Sorr not the intention for surrendering anyone, just some thoughts.

Do you think Mobile IPv6 needs improved implementations?

Alex

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:25:56 -0400

Alex,

> Sorr not the intention for surrendering anyone, just some thoughts.

I think there is a language/communication problem here.

DMM is chartered to handle the maintenance of all mobility protocols
developed within the IETF.

> Do you think Mobile IPv6 needs improved implementations?

I believe *all* implementations (not just mobility protocols) could be
improved.  But, I don't think that is the question you are asking...

I *think* the question you are asking is: "Are there enhancements that
can be made to the Mobile IPv6 specifications?"

Is that what you are asking?

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:33:40 +0100

> Is that what you are asking?

I agree yes.  Are there enhancements that can be made to the Mobile IPv6 
specs in particular RFC6275, RFC3963, RFC4877, RFC6276.

Yours,

Alex

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:40:28 -0400

> specs in particular RFC6275, RFC3963, RFC4877, RFC6276.

I personally do not know.  But as Jouni suggested, write a draft on the
enhancements you want to see and get feedback.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:46:28 +0100

> enhancements you want to see and get feedback.

Brian - thank you for the invitation.  Maybe I will do.

Now that the deadline passed it's for the next year.  I will keep a mark 
on these emails.

Alex

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:00:29 -0500

Hi Alex,

Thank you for raising these points.
 I found the long discussion quite inspiring.

I think that we should not forget that there are many solutions
submitted to dmm. Some are revisions to the integrated solutions like
dmm for wifi, AERO, etc. and some are pieces of solutions like Wei's
address management, Charlie's privacy, etc.

I suggest that in the upcoming dmm session we discuss this issue of solutions.

Regards,

Behcet