Subject: [nemo] NEMO IETF56 Agenda

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:34:50 +0900 (JST)

Dear all,

Here is a draft agenda. We still have time left if there are requests
for more slots. Particularly, we would like to have contribution on:

- threat analysis

- issues in NEMO basic support 

- conclusion from the "AAA in NEMO" discussion

- more discussion on the solutions for NEMO Basic Support
  Contrasting of the drafts, plans on how we are going to combine them
  and which features to include.

o Agenda NEMO Working Group - 56th IETF San Francisco

  Reading list: 
  all drafts available on http://www.nal.motlabs.com/nemo
      draft-ernst-nemo-terminology-01.txt
      draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-00.txt  
      draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-00.txt 
      draft-wakikawa-nemo-basic-00.txt
      draft-petrescu-nemo-mrha-02.txt
      draft-thubert-nemo-ipv4-traversal-00.txt

- Agenda bashing					5 mins
  TJ Kniveton / Thierry Ernst  

- Charter Update and Milestones				5 mins
  TJ Kniveton 

- NEMO Support Requirements				15mins
  Draft Update
  draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-00.txt
  Thierry Ernst

- Multi-Homing Issues in Bi-Directional Tunneling	15mins
  draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-00.txt 
  Chan Wah and Takeshi Tanaka 

- Basic NEMO Support solutions
  draft-wakikawa-nemo-basic-00.txt
  others ?

- IPv4 traversal for MIPv6 based Mobile Routers		15mins
  draft-thubert-nemo-ipv4-traversal-00.txt
  [get it from http://www.nal.motlabs.com/nemo]

- Terminology						15mins
  Proposed terms to be inserted in draft-seamoby
  draft-ernst-nemo-terminology-01.txt
  Thierry Ernst

The chairs.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:36:29 -0800

>   draft-wakikawa-nemo-basic-00.txt

draft-kniveton-mobrtr-03.txt?

IMHO, it is not a great idea for people to present their
solutions. others can read that from the respective drafts.
it would be more useful to focus on the issues, differences
between the solutions and what we really need for the basic
nemo protocol.

>   [get it from http://www.nal.motlabs.com/nemo]

I havent read this draft yet. but do we need this now? we 
dont even have "IPv4 traversal for MIPv6 based Mobile 
Hosts". :-) we dont have this in the charter. maybe it 
belongs in v6ops? 

IMO, we should finish up the basic protocol (or atleast 
have a mature protocol) before we start taking up new 
charter items.

Vijay

---

From: "Timothy J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:21:44 -0800 (PST)

Hi Vijay,

> between the solutions and what we really need for the basic

Thierry and I have discussed the basic solutions draft and how to handle
the various aspects at IETF56. draft-kniveton-mobrtr was part of this
discussion at all of the past NEMO meetings, and it should not have been
left off the reading list, but I believe that simply didn't get edited
into the agenda yet, not that it was excluded.

Your point is valid about presenting individual solutions. It is best if
people can briefly talk about the new drafts that have been submitted
since the last IETF (which is why draft-wakikawa is there), and then we
will have a discussion about how to combine them. For instance, we can
talk about the similarities/differences between the drafts, and then
discuss the process on how to come up with a unified solution draft. This
is similar to what happened with the requirements draft discussion during
the IETF meeting, where I presented all of the existing material, and then
Thierry combined  the information after the meeting which reflected WG
consensus, and served as editor for the unified requirements document
which we now have. This process seemed to work well, and we have a similar
situation for the basic draft-nemo. But of course some aspects are
different and we are dealing with bits and signaling so things are a bit
more complicated, but the basic idea is the same.

In preparation for the IETF, it is important that people read all of the
current basic solution proposals that have already been discussed on the
list, and they are available from the NEMO web page. We will revise the
agenda item to allow some discussion of this, since it is currently the
hot topic in the group's deliverables, so rest assured it will not just be
one draft presented!

> Hosts". :-) we dont have this in the charter. maybe it

Let's see what people's opinions are. During last meetings, we have had
discussions about topics that are not necessarily tops on the to-do list,
but I see it as being helpful for the overall discussion not to exclude
these totally, as long as the perspective on priorities is kept. Perhaps
we can adjust the time scheduling a bit.
> have a mature protocol) before we start taking up new

Good point; we will make sure that progress is made on that!!

> Vijay

Thanks,
TJ

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:19:31 +0900 (JST)

Hi Vijay, TJ,

> into the agenda yet, not that it was excluded.

To add something to what TJ says, I didn't excluded drafts, I just
listed the new one (draft-wakikawa). Also, during the call for slot, I
didn't have any request to discuss the past drafts. 

I agree 100% with Vijay that we need to focus on issues and
differences, but the pre-requisite for that is to have drafts authors
to claim they have solutions complying the Basic NEMO Support
requirements.  At this point in time, it's not very clear what drafts
for Basic NEMO Support are on the table.

So, draft authors, please identify yourself and discuss this on the
mailing so that we make an efficient use of our time during the
meeting. And then, yes, we can have a discussion turning "how to
combine the solutions".

> Good point; we will make sure that progress is made on that!!

I agree all with this, but it also all depends with the people
committing to do the work and discuss on the mailing list.

Thierry.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:20:10 +0100

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> differences, but the pre-requisite for that is to have drafts 
> authors to claim they have solutions complying the Basic NEMO 
> Support requirements.

Thierry, thank you for asking.

The annex of draft-petrescu-nemo-mrha-02.txt describes potential
high-level behaviour of MR and HA that go along the lines of basic
NEMO support requirements (that have minimal modifs to Mobile IPv6 for
hosts).  The draft itself is not a solution per se (if filename is
nemo-mrha it's only because nemo-mrha-issues was too long).  The 01
version of this draft was presented at last IETF so we don't feel a
new slot is necessary, because changes are mainly cosmetic, with only
these two relatively minor additions:
-HA ingress filtering discussion; Vijay might know more.
-cross-over tunnels issue.

But we do welcome and are interested to see all discussion that
compares draft-wakikawa vs draft-kniveton vs no-prefixes-in-BU vs any
other issue.