Subject: [MEXT] clarification on flow binding documents

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:45:20 +0200

Let me see if we are all on the same page on this.

In the charter we have:

- A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for an exchange of
policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from the
Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the
Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The solution involves two
specifications, one for the policy format and another for its
transport [both Standard Track].

For this deliverable we have:

draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-01.txt defines the format part of the last 
sentence in the paragraph above.

draft-larsson-mext-flow-distribution-rules and the other binary encoding 
(we don't have a draft for this yet, right?) defines the policy format 
of the last sentence of the charter paragraph above.

We all agree?

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Yungui Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:15:32 +0800

Hello

Thanks for your clarification. I had read these two drafts.
In my understanding, a flow distribution rule defined in ID-larsson is 
not equal to Flow Description (left part of FID option), but including 
parameters FID, action, etc in ID-Flow-Binding.  Does they need to 
be further coordinated, e.g. to merge these repeated parameters? 
Or, should each rule be interpreted by MN to fit FID option before 
it is sent to network?

B.R.
Yungui 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 3:45 PM
> To: mext
> Subject: [MEXT] clarification on flow binding documents
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>

---

From: Romain KUNTZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:29:53 +0200

Hi,

On 2009/04/17, at 9:45, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-01.txt defines the format part of the  
> last sentence in the paragraph above.

I think you meant *transport* and not format here. Note that an  
alternative transport solution using Generic Notification Messages was  
also proposed here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eriksson-mext-mipv6-routing-rules-00

> draft-larsson-mext-flow-distribution-rules and the other binary  
> encoding (we don't have a draft for this yet, right?) defines the  
> policy format of the last sentence of the charter paragraph above.
>
> We all agree?

Yes,

Cheers,
-- 
Romain KUNTZ
[email-masked]
LSIIT - Networks and Protocols Team
http://clarinet.u-strasbg.fr/~kuntz/

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:53:08 +0200

thanks Romain

sigh, i should never ever send emails to public mls before breakfast!!!

Let me try again (and i am sorry for this

In the charter we have:

draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-01.txt defines the transport part of the 
last sentence in the paragraph above.

draft-larsson-mext-flow-distribution-rules and the other binary encoding 
defines the policy format of the last sentence of the charter paragraph 
above.

We all agree?

Regards, marcelo

---

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:24:06 +0100

Yes :-)

,,,and the binary format will be available soon.

George

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:53 AM, marcelo bagnulo braun
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-01.txt defines the transport part of the last
>> alternative transport solution using Generic Notification Messages was also
>> proposed here:
>>> (we don't have a draft for this yet, right?) defines the policy format of
>>> the last sentence of the charter paragraph above.
>>>
>>> We all agree?
>>
>> Yes,
>>
>> Cheers,
>

---

From: Conny Larsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:47:18 +0200

Hi Marcelo,

I agree.

Regards

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> encoding defines the policy format of the last sentence of the charter 
> paragraph above.
>
> We all agree?
>
> Regards, marcelo
>
>
> Romain KUNTZ escribió:
>> Hi,
>>
>> alternative transport solution using Generic Notification Messages 
>> was also proposed here:

---

From: Michael Eriksson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:53:26 +0200

> defines the policy format of the last sentence of the charter paragraph 

Well, now that we are taking a new grip on flow routing, I would like
to push draft-eriksson-mext-mipv6-routing-rules-00, which Romain also
pointed at.

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eriksson-mext-mipv6-routing-rules

draft-eriksson describes a new way to transfer flow routing rules. It
is thus an alternative to draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding. Notable
differences between the drafts:

- draft-eriksson supports transferring of rules in both directions, MN
  to HA as well as HA to MN.

  The flow-binding draft only supports one way rule transmission, MN
  to HA. This means that the flow-binding draft does not fulfill the
  requirements from the wg charter, which includes HA to MN rule
  transfer.

- draft-eriksson separates rule updates from handovers (BUs), since
  they are completely separate events. Separating them leads to a
  protocol that is both simpler and more efficient.

- The rule format in draft-eriksson is completely open. The format in
  the flow-binding draft is very complex, and difficult to adapt to
  other rule formats than what it was originally designed for.

draft-eriksson has currently expired, but can of course be revived
after feedback from the mailing list.

Regards,
Michael

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:03:03 +0200

I understand that we do have a WG document for this and we had several 
rounds of reviews which show interest, so i don't see any reason to 
revisit the decision of using draft-ietf-flow-binding at this point.
regards, marcelo

---

From: Michael Eriksson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:29:07 +0200

> revisit the decision of using draft-ietf-flow-binding at this point.

Well, the WG document has had exactly zero progress since the 00
version was adopted almost a full year ago. It's not like chosing
another way to transfer routing rules would be a last minute stop to
something that has already been finished.

It is also the case that the suggested rule format is what is defined
in draft-larsson-mext-flow-distribution-rules. As a co-author of that
draft, I want to stress that the rule transfer format in the
flow-binding draft is very inflexible.

Finally, that I am pushing draft-eriksson doesn't mean that we would
have to adopt it as is (even if I would be happy if that happened
:-)). See it as input on how we think flow rule transfer should be
done. I think I mentioned some valid advantages compared to the
flow-binding draft in my last e-mail.

Regards,
Michael

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:35:47 +1100

> something that has already been finished.

=> Nonsense. The WG document has been depending on the progress of MCoA and
now that MCoA is done we will have a new near final version by the weekend.
This version has already received numerous reviews and some feedback from
implementations. We expect this to go to LC before the next meeting. Please
get those facts straight. BTW, the 00 version was around for discussions and
review for a couple of years as a monami6 WG doc before it was adopted by
the MEXT WG. 

Hesham

---

From: "Yuri Ismailov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:04:43 +0200

=> Nonsence. Consider this is yet another feedback from implementation.
Another intresting thing is that technical arguments are answered back
with procedural arguments.
Suggest not to mess up those otherwise it sounds too bureaucratic.
Documents having RFC status can be obsoleted as well.

/yuri

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Hesham Soliman
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 12:36 PM
To: Michael Eriksson; marcelo bagnulo braun
Cc: mext
Subject: Re: [MEXT] One more try (was Re: clarification on flow binding
documents

On 21/04/09 10:29 PM, "Michael Eriksson" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>>> Well, now that we are taking a new grip on flow routing, I would 
>>> like to push draft-eriksson-mext-mipv6-routing-rules-00, which 
>>> Romain also pointed at.
>>> 
>> I understand that we do have a WG document for this and we had 
>> several rounds of reviews which show interest, so i don't see any 
>> reason to revisit the decision of using draft-ietf-flow-binding at
this point.
> something that has already been finished.

=> Nonsense. The WG document has been depending on the progress of MCoA
and now that MCoA is done we will have a new near final version by the
weekend.
This version has already received numerous reviews and some feedback
from implementations. We expect this to go to LC before the next
meeting. Please get those facts straight. BTW, the 00 version was around
for discussions and review for a couple of years as a monami6 WG doc
before it was adopted by the MEXT WG. 

Hesham

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:14:40 +1000

Yuri, 

What is nonsense? And what is the feedback from implementations? I'm
responding to the comment that there was zero progress and that the draft is
not near completion, both of which are wrong. What are you calling nonsesnse
and what is the feedback you're offering?

Hesham

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:33:10 +0200

> something that has already been finished.
in general, as a chair, i like to make progress forward in the process 
i.e. wg doc adoption, WGLC, IESG, RFC, rather than in the oposite 
direction, i.e. adopting a WG document, disadopting a WG doc and so on

Of course, things are not always forward and sometimes the WG consensus 
is that we were wrong in the first approach and we need to change.

What i am saying that i don't see this trend here. We had considerable 
amount of activivty and reviews in this doc lately, so to me that 
epxresses that the WG feels this doc is in good shape

> flow-binding draft is very inflexible.
this would then make the case that the format defined in draft-larson is 
not very suitbale for the transport that the WG has chosen, which would 
then mean that we probably want to use the bit pattern rules instead, right?

> flow-binding draft in my last e-mail.
sure, any WG member is entitled to make any comments they feel like. I 
am just saying that the current plan is to make progress with the doc 
the WG has chosen, but i guess that's obvious.

Regards, marcelo

---

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:36:20 +0100

Yuri,

What you guys are proposing is architecturaly significantly different
from what this WG has agreed to do and what the Flow Bindings draft is
all about.

For example, allowing the HA to send rules to the MN are both
significant departures from the current agreement.

I would also point out that in theory there is nothing preventing us
from extending the Flow Bindings work to any of the directions you are
talking about, except from the fact that some of us might
disagree...especially with the HA sending rules to the MN  part.

Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, which will likely be futile,
I would suggest you wait for the new version of the Flow Bindings
draft. Then write a draft (or e-mail) proposing ways of extending Flow
Bindings with your desired features. Then, we can have a discussion
about whether such changes are useful and desirable.

Regards
George

---

From: Conny Larsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:14:48 +0200

Hi Marcelo,

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> this would then make the case that the format defined in draft-larson 
> is not very suitbale for the transport that the WG has chosen, which 
> would then mean that we probably want to use the bit pattern rules 
> instead, right?
Or that the transport protocol are making assumptions that are not 
needed since they are only applicable for one type of solution.

Regards
Conny

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:29:26 -0400

Hi George,

one comment.

> significant departures from the current agreement.

I asked to support this feature in the flow binding several times (1-2  
years ago?)
This is somewhat related what we have discussed (defining MH type for  
flow exchange) at the previous IETF.

There are some scenarios triggering the flow exchange from the network  
side (HA).

regards,
ryuji

> Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Yuri Ismailov <[email-masked] 
> > wrote:
>> Behalf Of
>> On 21/04/09 10:29 PM, "Michael Eriksson" <[email-masked] 
>> >
>> wrote:
>>

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:31:07 -0400

Hi Hesham,

I am collecting the implementation info of MCoA or flow binding.
Which implementation's' are you referring to ? Romain's one?
Please share the implementations info if you can.

thanks,
ryuji

On 2009/04/21, at 6:35, Hesham Soliman wrote:

>>>> like
>>> several
> from

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:06:21 +1000

Hi Ryuji, 

There was a long detailed presentation made in monami6 by one of Koojana's
colleagues (the name escapes me) where he gave detailed feedback based on
their implementation. Also Nicolas gave some feedback based on their MR
implementation and use scenarios. The former is in the public domain and the
latter was part of the discussion for the next rev.

Hesham

---

From: Michael Eriksson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:13:02 +0200

> is that we were wrong in the first approach and we need to change.

I agree that moving things forward is generally positive...

My impression from your original mail was that we should focus on flow
routing now, to make progress in that area. When we make a decision on
what solution to select to be an RFC, we should at least be sure that
all relevant input is taken into account.

I have pushed our draft, since I think that it is technically superior
for a number of reasons that I have already mentioned. draft-eriksson
is almost a year old and has been announced on the mext mailing list,
so I am not throwing in any last-minute idea.

>From my point of view, the flow routing issue has made very little
progress in the last few years. Now is the time to finally make some
progress. It would be sad if "progress" was just rubber stamping the
oldest solution, which was selected as WG item two years ago when it
was the only solution available, without proper evaluation of the
alternative solutions that have been developed since then.

> then mean that we probably want to use the bit pattern rules instead, right?

I thought that the idea with the flow-binding draft was to make a
/generic/ format for distribution of flow rules. Our experience, from
designing a flow rule language, is that it is not generic enough and
still is very tailored to the rule format that it was originally
designed for. If we want just one single binary format, we can revert
to draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04, but I obviously think that
that would be a mistake.

> the WG has chosen, but i guess that's obvious.

Yes, but I think that the WG members should at least know about the
alternative solutions before we go for a solution that might have
unwanted limitations.

Regards,
Michael

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:21:36 +0200

Michael Eriksson escribió:
> routing now, to make progress in that area. 
well, we have this deliverable in the charter for a long time now, so, 
any progress in any of the deliverables we have is always welcome. there 
is nothing special with this deliverable at this point it time (other 
than peopel are working on it, which is good)

> When we make a decision on
sure
but we cannot rehash the same discussions over and over again

> so I am not throwing in any last-minute idea.
ok

> alternative solutions that have been developed since then.
mmm, that's not my recollection of these topic, I undersrnad that when 
adopting this document there was a lot of debate on what solution was 
better and there were several apporaches considered (don't know if 
multiple drafts, but certainly i recall several presentations)

So, i don't think this draft was adopted lightly

> to draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04, but I obviously think that
this is up for the wg to comment,

> alternative solutions before we go for a solution that might have

sure, again this is up to the WG

regards, marcelo

---

From: Michael Eriksson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:24:58 +0200

> significant departures from the current agreement.

What "current agreement"? The mext charter /explicitly/ says that the
flow routing rules should be sent in both directions:

Additionally, there has been explicit interest shown on this mailing
list for sending flow routing rules also from HA to MN.

> disagree...especially with the HA sending rules to the MN  part.

That does not seem very constructive, if other people are interested
in sending flow routing rules from the HA to the MN. Your MIP
implementation is of course welcome to reject any incoming rules to
the MN.

> about whether such changes are useful and desirable.

We have not "reinvented the wheel". We have done an alternative
solution, which we think is technically superior due to advantages
that I have listed in a separate e-mail.

Regards,
Michael