Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Cleanup of Mobile-IP milestones

From: Roberts Phil-QA3445 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:54:27 -0600

Eva,

        we spoke some time ago about what you wanted to do with this draft.
At one point you'd dropped it and then were thinking of reviving it.  Do you
know want to continue to pursue it as an informational RFC?

        For the rest of the group, if the draft isn't really cellular
specific, does the WG think that it adequately encompasses the cellular
requirements that we had for this work item?

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Eva Gustafsson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 7:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Cleanup of Mobile-IP milestones

Hello Pat,

>> Dec 99         Submit draft capturing cellular requirements to IESG as an
>>                      Informational RFC.

> I am not sure what this is. If we are talking about the joint
Ericsson/Telia
> draft, then this is GSM-specific, and does not take into account the
TR45.6
> work. In fact, the TR45.6 draft never actually became a WG work item. So
we
> have two choices, either 1) combine the GSM and CDMA draft, or 2) pick one
> and cross our fingers. Option 1 is quite interesting, and is likely to
> create a very tense political situation, but would be nonetheless
entertaining
> while 2) is useless (IMHO).

Yes, this is about the Ericsson/Telia draft, and I don't consider it
GSM-specific.
As a matter of fact, it lists general requirements on Mobile IP, not so much
cellular-specific, but requirements on Mobile IP as an access-independent
macro-mobility solution. As such, it is equally applicable to cdma2000.

If anyone wants to add requirements or aspects to the draft, I will be happy
to
include them.

/Eva

Eva Gustafsson
Ericsson Inc.
1555 Adams Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
USA

+1 (510) 305-6107

---

From: Roberts Phil-QA3445 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:12:30 -0600

Pat,

        thanks for raising this issue.  I agree we should update this,
mostly along the lines you suggest.  Embedded are adjustments.  If there are
no major complaints from the WG, we will do so.

Phil

Here is my proposal:

> Jul 96        Submit the IPv4 Mobile Host Protocol to the IESG as a
Proposed
>               Standard.
Mark as done.
Agree.

> Dec 96        Submit the IPv6 Mobile Host Protocol to the IESG as a
Proposed
>               Standard.
Delete, since it is a duplicate entry.
Agree.

> Mar 97        Review the WG charter and update as needed.
I assume that this task was completed, and therefore can be marked as done.
Agree.

>Jun 99         Review the WG charter and update based on current needs and
>               focus.
See previous comment.
Agree.

>Jun 99         Submit Internet-Draft for NAI support in Mobile IP to IESG
for
>               consideration as a Proposed Standard.
Mark as done.
Agree.

>Aug 99         Review the use of AAA in Mobile IP to support inter-domain
and
>               intra-domain mobility and dynamic home agent assignment.
Is someone on the hook to get this done? Is this simply part of the AAA
requirements, and if so, then state it. It really isn't obvious. BTW, we
missed
that deadline big time, let's pick another random completion date :)
See next bullet.

>Dec 99         Submit draft on using AAA in Mobile IP for inter-domain and
>               intra-domain mobility as a proposed standard.
See previous comment.
I believe the group's involvement in this has become specifying Mobile-IP
requirements for AAA.  We have a draft of that already.  Perhaps we should
pick a date of Jul 2000 for compleetion in case there is some iteration
needed and make it a single  bullet?

>Dec 99         Submit draft capturing cellular requirements to IESG as an
I am not sure what this is. If we are talking about the joint Ericsson/Telia
draft, then this is GSM-specific, and does not take into account the TR45.6
work. In fact, the TR45.6 draft never actually became a WG work item. So we
have two choices, either 1) combine the GSM and CDMA draft, or 2) pick one
and cross our fingers. Option 1 is quite interesting, and is likely to
create a very tense political situation, but would be nonetheless
entertaining
while 2) is useless (IMHO). The completion date also needs updating.
I sent an email in response to Eva about this.  I'd like the working group
to decide what it wants to do for this.  From what I know about the two
worlds of GSM and IMT-2000, not to mention the others, what they want from
mobile IP are quite different.  I'm also still not really sure what the
purpose of such a document would be anyway.

Oh, and it looks as if Raj's e-mail address needs updating on the web page
as well.
Yes.

PatC

---

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:28:46 -0800

Looks good.

PatC

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:06:22 +0200

Eva & Phil,

ignoring Eva's comment about the draft not being cellular specific, I think
that the draft adequately updated reflects cellular systems' requirements
(GSM and others) for Mobile IP in general. Thus, it should not be dropped if
Eva is still willing to update it.

Cheers,

Jonne.

> From: EXT Roberts Phil-QA3445 [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 08. February 2000 22:54

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 09:35:14 -0600

Jonne,

The I-D has expired as of Dec 99. Unless there is some interest in
this draft and someone willing to commit some time to it, I think
we should drop it from the milestones. The draft needs to take into
consideration the requirements for multiple cellular technologies
(as Pat was mentioning earlier). If you are willing to commit some of
your time in updating this draft, then you are most welcome. You may
wish to contact Eva (the current editor) and work out the details.

Another possibility is that we could find out what from the WG at IETF47
if there is any interest in this work at all and decide on the course
of action based on feedback.

-Basavaraj