Subject: [Mobopts] Re: [Mipshop] update and thoughts on Korea agenda

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:54:33 -0800

I believe that the MIPSHOP WG should finish its charter and disband. There
is no dishonor in completing the job that we set out to accomplish and
moving on, in fact, I believe the IESG would view it as a very positive
accomplishment. In my opinion, most of the open questions involved in
engineering a modular, well designed suite of protocols to support local
link handover in IP require some intensive thought and architectural
discussion, then a round of implementation and experiment to determine which
of several proposals work best, because there will inevitably be several
proposals, and in the few remaining cases where MIPSHOP might do work, there
already are. Accomplishing this kind of experimental/research work in an
atmosphere of scientific and engineering objectivity is impossible in IETF,
as the history of the development of local link handover support has shown.
The whole point of forming the MOBOPTS RG was to provide a venue where this
kind of work could be done. When we have agreement in MOBOPTS that the
research questions are answered, we can re-introduce the protocols into IETF
and then have a much better chance of achieving concensus, because we will
have answered the big research questions first.

As for proposals to introduce other topics, such as location privacy, I
believe if people want to do work on these in IETF, then a BOF should be
organized. In fact (since I am interested in location privacy myself), I'd
be happy to help organize a BOF if people want.

In summary, I think the IETF mobility community should take any further work
on local link handover for IP to MOBOPTS, and work hard to make MOBOPTS a
success. It was specifically formed to tackle further development of local
link handover for IP.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Seok J. Koh" <[email-masked]>
To: "gabriel montenegro" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] update and thoughts on Korea agenda

> One of the promising items for discussion in the meeting is
> the next step of the MIPSHOP WG.
>
> We have now been completing a few urgent jobs including FMIPv6 & HMIPv6.
> I think, for the fulfillment of MIPSHOP work goal, we need to address and
> review a couple of additional items before wrapping up the WG,
> which may be selected among the individual I-Ds so far discussed
> on the mobileip or mipshop mailing lists.
>
> It does not mean to touch the advanced or innovative approaches like "L3
mobility".
> Those may be addressed in the IRTF. I mean some more additional items
> closely related to the FMIPv6 and/or HMIPv6.
> I think the FMIP-over-802.11 is one of them, which was already agreed in
the group, and
> the F-HMIPv6 is also another candidate for that.
>
> How about asking the people about the candidate additional items for
MIPSHOP WG.
> And discuss the next step of MIPSHOP and then select appropriate items for
further work, if agreed.
>
> This meeting is just the 3rd meeting of MIPSHOP officially.
> I do not think the lifespan of the MIPSHOP will be so short :-)
>
> Seok
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "gabriel montenegro" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 5:53 AM
> Subject: [Mipshop] update and thoughts on Korea agenda
>
>
> > Today I submitted the latest version of LMM to the IESG for
> > consideration as informational rfc.
> >
> > I'm also wondering of whether we should meet in Korea, and if so, what
> > the agenda might be.
> > Any suggestions? HMIPv6 and FMIPv6 have also undergone WG last call and
> > should be going
> > soon to the IESG. I'm not sure there will be yet much feedback (or even
> > if the corresponding
> > IETF last call will have started). Pete McCann is preparing the next
> > version of the FMIP-over-802.11
> > draft, perhaps there will be something to discuss there. Pete?
> >
> > I have asked for a 1 hour slot in Korea, but would like to solicit the
> > opinions of the WG on this
> > matter.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > -gabriel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mipshop mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>

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

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 11:58:36 -0800

> success. It was specifically formed to tackle further development of local

I agree that further enhancements to handover need better understanding.
I hope we can make use of Mobopts to foster this interest. I think the work
there
will be able to spawn new standardization in IETF.

-Rajeev

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 08:13:03 -0800

> There seems to be somewhat different views between us on MIPSHOP WG and
MOBOPTS RG.
> Basically, I think, the MOBOPTS RG will touch the advanced and substantial
issues
> on Mobility Optimization, which may include the re-consideration of FMIP
and HMIP
> with the different views and approaches from the works made so far.
>
> What I'm saying as additional items for further consideration in the
MIPSHOP
> is the works that are just based on the current FMIPv6 and HMIPv6,
> for examples, how we could use the FMIPv6 and/or HMIPv6.
> I think the FMIP-over-WLAN issue is in that category, and
> the F-HMIPv6 will be in the same line with the FMIP-over-WLAN.
> Both are for addressing how to use the existing FMIP and HMIP,
> not changing or advancing them, I believe.
>

HMIP and FMIP are on track to become Experimental drafts. As such, any
further work on them should be considered experimental, and therefore
material for the RG. The purpose of the RG is to continue work on these
protocols and others involved in local subnet IP handover (I'm thinking here
of Seamoby CARD and CTP, which are also Experimental and were also recently
sent to the IESG) until the problem of local subnet IP handover is well
enough understood that it can be taken back to the IETF for standardization.
This might include some redesign or enhancement of the protocols, and I
believe it should include collecting data and analyzing the behavior of the
protocols under a variety of different link and prototype network deployment
conditions. The reason I think this is necessary is because local link
handover is something new to IETF, unlike, for example, congestion control
which is very well understood and has been a topic of investigation in IETF
for many years. I believe that the discussion in the MIP and Seamoby groups
about these protocols was lacking in basic understanding about the physics
of local link handover and that this lack of understanding led to basic
disagreements about the architecture and design of the protocols that made i
t hard to reach concensus about what would be the best design (and I'm
including myself in the people who were not well informed). If we can come
to the same kind of concensus about the basic architecture and design of
local link handover that the Transport guys have about congestion control,
it will make coming to concensus in IETF about the details of the protocol
standards much simpler. I don't see the RG doing advanced research on
mobility that is beyond the bounds of understanding local subnet IP handover
necessary for coming up with a standard, in fact, the charter for the RG
specifically rules it out.

            jak