Subject: [Mip6] Draft agenda for MIP6 WG meeting at IETF66

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:10:03 -0500

THURSDAY, July 13, 2006
0900-1130 Morning Session I
Room 518AB

=========================================

1. Agenda review, Blue sheets and volunteers for taking notes and
   Jabber scribe       5 Mins

2. WG status and I-Ds update                10 Mins

3. Mobile IPv6 support for dual stack Hosts and Routers (DSMIPv6)
   I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-01.txt

   Hesham Soliman                    15 Mins

4. Mobility management for Dual stack mobile nodes:  A Problem Statement
   I-D:   draft-ietf-mip6-dsmip-problem-02.txt

   Hesham Soliman                    5 Mins

5. Charter discussion                    15 Mins
   Chairs

Non-WG items:

A. Vendor specific and experimental message types
   I-D: draft-devarapalli-mip6-vsm-00.txt
        draft-devarapalli-mip6-experimental-messages-00.txt

   Vijay Devarapalli                    15 Mins

B. Bootstrapping for the authentication option protocol
   I-D: draft-devarapalli-mip6-authprotocol-bootstrap-00.txt

C. DHCP Option for Home Information Discovery in MIPv6
   I-D:  draft-jang-mip6-hiopt-00.txt

   Heejin Jiang                        10 Mins

D. Scenario analysis and problem statement of the dual-stack mobile
   entity roaming in the ipv4 and ipv6 network
   I-D: draft-wan-mip6-nemo-dsanalysis-00.txt

   Tom Wan                        10 Mins

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:29:02 +0200

Basavaraj Patil wrote:
> THURSDAY, July 13, 2006 0900-1130 Morning Session I Room 518AB
> 

The DS-MIPv6 draft has 7 authors on the frontpage.  That was discussed
as a potential issue with a guideline that would suggest only 5 authors
there.  Among other, not following the suggestion has some practical
consequences (AUTH48 time takes longer).

I don't see why presenting this draft at IETF in its current form.  Or
maybe there are plans to update it for this?

> 4. Mobility management for Dual stack mobile nodes:  A Problem 
> Statement I-D:   draft-ietf-mip6-dsmip-problem-02.txt
> 
> Hesham Soliman                    5 Mins

AD asked for a problem statement for the MIP4-MIP6 space.

However, this draft does not contain the original problem statement of
draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel-01.txt (namely multiple encapsulation).
Additionally, all the list discussion since last IETF around problem
statement is not reflected in this draft.

I don't see why presenting it.  Or maybe there are plans to update it
for this?

It's hard to have a meaningful discussion during the WG meeting when the
email discussion prior to it is not taken into account.

Alex

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:15:13 -0700

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> 3. Mobile IPv6 support for dual stack Hosts and Routers (DSMIPv6) I-D: 
>> draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-01.txt
>>
>> Hesham Soliman                    15 Mins
> 
> 
> there.  

its only a guideline. if all the people did contribute, I see
nothing wrong in including all of them. I mentioned this during
NETLMM problem statement discussion too.

Among other, not following the suggestion has some practical
> maybe there are plans to update it for this?

in general a draft should never be "presented". meeting time is
for resolving issues.

Vijay

---

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:45:58 -0700

> consequences (AUTH48 time takes longer).

=> What does this have to do with the agenda??? 

 > maybe there are plans to update it for this?

=> We may or may not. This has nothing to do with the technical
discussion in the draft.

 > statement is not reflected in this draft.

=> Please be specific. What comments were made on this draft and not
included?

 > email discussion prior to it is not taken into account.

=> Informed comments about the technical content of drafts the email
discussion will be easily reflected in the drafts. Comments about the
number of authors and confusion about what the solution does or does not
do is generally hard to reflect in the technical content of the draft.
Without being specific about what was apparently "ignored" (according to
your comment above), I really can't do anything to address your comment.
Of course not every comment made will be reflected in the draft because
it might be wrong or unsuitable. But, in any case, I haven't seen any
comments from you on the problem statement that were simply "ignored"! 

Also FYI, this is not a "presentation" of a draft, this is to discuss
the state of this draft after it was updated by comments from Pekka S,
Jari and others. 

Hesham

---

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:20:21 -0500

Inline:

> consequences (AUTH48 time takes longer).

As you noted, it is a "guideline" and NOT a rule.

> maybe there are plans to update it for this?

The I-D in its current form is good for WG discussion. There will be
revisions before it goes to WG LC. But at this point, I see no reason for it
not being on the agenda. What is the specific concern that you have?

> AD asked for a problem statement for the MIP4-MIP6 space.

This I-D has existed as a MIP6 WG I-D for a long time. This has got nothing
to do with the AD asking for a problem statement from the work being done in
MIP4. So lets not confuse the issue.

> I don't see why presenting it.  Or maybe there are plans to update it

The I-D has been revised and changes will be discussed. How this work will
proceed is a matter of discussion by the WG. Will it be updated before
IETF66? No. 

> email discussion prior to it is not taken into account.

The email discussion on the MIP6 ML was about the rechartering of MIP4 and
specifically the proposal to work on an equivalent solution that exists in
MIP6 for DS nodes for MIP4 hosts. We will not be discussing this in the MIP6
WG. 

-Raj

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:49:09 +0200

[sorry for late reply]

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>> The DS-MIPv6 draft has 7 authors on the frontpage.  That was
>> discussed as a potential issue with a guideline that would suggest
>> only 5 authors there.
> 
> its only a guideline. if all the people did contribute, I see nothing
> wrong in including all of them. I mentioned this during NETLMM
> problem statement discussion too.

I don't see any reason why not following the guideline.  Do you?

>> I don't see why presenting this draft at IETF in its current form.
>> Or maybe there are plans to update it for this?
> 
> in general a draft should never be "presented". meeting time is for
> resolving issues.

I don't think issues I raised can be solved during WG meeting if they
can't be solved on the mailing list.  Some of the most important issues
is the NAT traversal part.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:01:17 +0200

Soliman, Hesham wrote:
>> only 5 authors there.  Among other, not following the suggestion 
>> has some practical consequences (AUTH48 time takes longer).
> 

Because the suggestion was made to restrain the number of authors, and
the suggestion was not considered, I don't see why spending WG meeting
time in discussing all over.

> => We may or may not. This has nothing to do with the technical 

In what concerns my own technical remarks I don't see why discussion
should take place at WG meeting, when the mailing discussion doesn't
seem to advance.

>> However, this draft does not contain the original problem statement
>>  of draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel-01.txt (namely multiple 
>> encapsulation). Additionally, all the list discussion since last 
>> IETF around problem statement is not reflected in this draft.
> 

One original problem statement is in the
draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel-01.txt.   The encapsulating tunnel problem
in that draft is not reflected.  That problem statement resulted in
having IPv4 addresses in BU.  But the entire DS-MIPv6 draft is not based
on only this problem statement.

Other problem statement existed and expired in
draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios-01.txt

>> I don't see why presenting it.  Or maybe there are plans to update 
>> it for this?
>> 
>> It's hard to have a meaningful discussion during the WG meeting 
>> when the email discussion prior to it is not taken into account.
> 
>  discussion will be easily reflected in the drafts. Comments about
> the number of authors and confusion about what the solution does or
> does not do is generally hard to reflect in the technical content of
> the draft.

Solutions to these comments are straightforward.  Re-naming "discovery"
into "DNS resolution", and putting an Editor with 6 co-authors are both
straightforward resolutions.

> Without being specific about what was apparently "ignored" (according
>  to your comment above), I really can't do anything to address your 
> comment. Of course not every comment made will be reflected in the 
> draft because it might be wrong or unsuitable. But, in any case, I 
> haven't seen any comments from you on the problem statement that were
>  simply "ignored"!

I have suggested we come back to having a problem statement.  The short
problem should be put in terms of "continuous sessions", "permanent
reachable Home Address" and "IPv4 and IPv6".  I have suggested a number
of times DS-MIPv6 should not deal with IPv4 continuous sessions, neither
with IPv4 permanent reachable Home Addresses.

>  the state of this draft after it was updated by comments from Pekka 
> S, Jari and others.

Ok.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:17:41 +0200

> As you noted, it is a "guideline" and NOT a rule.

Raj, I agree it's a only guideline.  I don't see why not following it.
Do you?

>  revisions before it goes to WG LC. But at this point, I see no
> reason for it not being on the agenda. What is the specific concern
> that you have?

The concern I have is that it tries to address too many scenarios, has
too many features (namely IPv4 permanent home address and IPv4
continuous sessions should be out-of-scope for DS-MIPv6).

There's also the NAT Traversal part.  The specific concern on it is that
some NATs dynamically change the source port number even if heartbeating
is going through.  This may break IPv6 VoIP continuous sessions if (1)
the MN is not required to send packets every 100ms even in absence of
app data and (2) the HA does not store the src port number.  This was
raised at Dallas meeting, re-directed on the mailing list, re-discussed
on the mailing list and somehow concluded that actually there's no issue
with the current NAT traversal.  I still believe there's a big issue
with it.

> This I-D has existed as a MIP6 WG I-D for a long time. This has got 
> nothing to do with the AD asking for a problem statement from the 
> work being done in MIP4. So lets not confuse the issue.

I agree.  It's also true that the problem statement in draft-wakikawa is
at the origin of carrying IPv4 addresses in the BU - only.  That problem
statement talks about avoiding encapsulation.

> The I-D has been revised and changes will be discussed. How this work
>  will proceed is a matter of discussion by the WG. Will it be updated
>  before IETF66? No.

Ok.

> The email discussion on the MIP6 ML was about the rechartering of 
> MIP4 and specifically the proposal to work on an equivalent solution 
> that exists in MIP6 for DS nodes for MIP4 hosts. We will not be 
> discussing this in the MIP6 WG.

I wasn't trying to relate the MIP4 WG chartering with the MIP6
chartering.  But since you mention it... if DS-MIPv6 was only trying to
offer IPv6 permanent and reachable home address, and IPv6 continuous
sessions (not IPv4) then the DS-MIPv4 would be easier to motivate.

Alex

---

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:31:05 -0700

> time in discussing all over.

=> I didn't request a slot to discuss the number of authors on the
draft. 
I noted your comment before but it's not the most important issue to
handle now.

 > draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios-01.txt

=> That was not a problem statement it's a scenarios document. It's
interesting that you are choosing to ignore the original problem
statement that the WG accepted. What specifically is your comment on the
current draft? As opposed to listing other documents. 

 > straightforward resolutions.

=> We're handling issues in terms of priority. If you want to raise an
issue please use the issue tracker as other people did. This way it's
registered and not lost.

 > with IPv4 permanent reachable Home Addresses.

=> That's your opinion. You shouldn't expect that to be taken as gospel.
A lot of people don't agree with you about that. If you want to register
it as an issue then do so on the tracker and explain the technical
reasons for removing those features from the draft. 

Hesham

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:16:16 +0200

Soliman, Hesham wrote:
>> Because the suggestion was made to restrain the number of authors,
>>  and the suggestion was not considered, I don't see why spending WG
>>  meeting time in discussing all over.
> 
> draft. I noted your comment before but it's not the most important 
> issue to handle now.

To me it is paramount.  Many authors means more difficulty in reaching 
editing agreement, or risk document to not reflect some authors' oppinions.

>> draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel-01.txt.   The encapsulating tunnel 
>> problem in that draft is not reflected.  That problem statement 
>> resulted in having IPv4 addresses in BU.  But the entire DS-MIPv6 
>> draft is not based on only this problem statement.
>> 
> statement that the WG accepted. What specifically is your comment on
>  the current draft? As opposed to listing other documents.

Efficiency (or lack thereof) can not base a problem statement.  The issues:

>    - Mobile nodes to be both MIPv4 and MIPv6 capable. 
>    - Mobile nodes to send two sets of signaling messages on every   
>      handoff. 
>    - Network Administrators to run and maintain two sets of mobility   
>      management systems on the same network. Each of these systems  
>      requiring their own sets of optimizations that may include 
>      hierarchical Mobile IPv4, hierarchical Mobile IPv6 and Fast  
>      Handoffs for Mobile IPv4, mechanisms that are currently in  
>      development in the IETF. 

Small phones can easily do both mip4 and mip6.
With MIP4+MIP6 and connected to a v4-access the MN only does MIP4 
messaging upon handover, not MIP6 messaging.
MIP4+MIP6 do not involve running HMIP4+HMIP6.

The problems:
>    - The network operator needs to ensure that the home agent supports  
>      both protocols or that it has two separate Home Agents supporting 
>      the two protocols, each requiring its own management. 
>    - Double the amount of configuration in the mobile node and the home
>      agent (e.g., security associations).  
>    - Local network optimizations for handovers will also need to be  
>      duplicated. 

With DS-MIPv6 the network operator must make sure all HAs run both IPv4 
and IPv6, each requiring its own management.

Local network optimizations have no relationship with either MIP4 or 
MIP6, they work independently of the global mobility management protocol.

>> Solutions to these comments are straightforward.  Re-naming 
>> "discovery" into "DNS resolution", and putting an Editor with 6 
>> co-authors are both straightforward resolutions.
> 
> => We're handling issues in terms of priority. If you want to raise 
> an issue please use the issue tracker as other people did. This way 
> it's registered and not lost.

That's a good idea.  It seems to be currently not reachable though
(object not found)
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/mip6/draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal/trac/report/1

There may be an alternative access though, if so please let me know.
Otherwise I'll wait it comes up.

>> I have suggested we come back to having a problem statement. The 
>> short problem should be put in terms of "continuous sessions", 
>> "permanent reachable Home Address" and "IPv4 and IPv6".  I have 
>> suggested a number of times DS-MIPv6 should not deal with IPv4 
>> continuous sessions, neither with IPv4 permanent reachable Home 
>> Addresses.
> 

None of my intentions to take it as a gospel.  You take it as you wish.
  Take it as lack of support if you wish.

> A lot of people don't agree with you about that.

Ok.

> If you want to register it as an issue then do so on the tracker and
>  explain the technical reasons for removing those features from the 
> draft.

Not sure I get more luck with a separate tool...

Alex

---

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:50:37 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:16 PM
> To: Soliman, Hesham
> Cc: [email-masked]; Basavaraj Patil
> Subject: Re: [Mip6] Draft agenda for MIP6 WG meeting at IETF66
> 
> Soliman, Hesham wrote:

GT> Alex, this is a non-issue, you are inventing problems.

> MIP4+MIP6 do not involve running HMIP4+HMIP6.

GT> It is of course possible to run MIPv4 and MIPv6. DS-MIP came up,
however, because some of us did not want to do that for a variety of
reasons which are explained in the problem statement
(draft-ietf-mip6-dsmip-problem-02.txt) and have been accepted by the
majority of the WG. I do not think going over all this again is useful.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:57:34 -0700

> editing agreement, or risk document to not reflect some authors' oppinions.

it lists the folks who were in the design team. we have one editor
(Hesham) and he edits in whatever everyone decides. so there
shouldn't be an issue.

> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/mip6/draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal/trac/report/1 

the issue tracker is at http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/mip6/
the MIP6 WG has been using this tracker for a while. we have
not yet started using the tracker at tools.ietf.org for any of
the MIP6 WG documents.

Vijay

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:04:14 +0200

Tsirtsis, George wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu 
>> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Monday, June 26, 
>> 2006 3:16 PM To: Soliman, Hesham Cc: [email-masked]; Basavaraj Patil
>>>> Because the suggestion was made to restrain the number of 
>>>> authors, and the suggestion was not considered, I don't see why
>>>>  spending WG meeting time in discussing all over.
>>> => I didn't request a slot to discuss the number of authors on 
>>> the draft. I noted your comment before but it's not the most 
>>> important issue to handle now.
>> To me it is paramount.  Many authors means more difficulty in 
>> reaching editing agreement, or risk document to not reflect some 
>> authors' oppinions.
>> 
> 
> GT> Alex, this is a non-issue, you are inventing prowblems.

George - I consider it a problem having 7 authors on the frontpage.

>>>>  problem in that draft is not reflected.  That problem 
>>>> statement resulted in having IPv4 addresses in BU.  But the 
>>>> entire DS-MIPv6 draft is not based on only this problem 
>>>> statement.
>>>> 
>>> => That was not a problem statement it's a scenarios document. 
>>> It's interesting that you are choosing to ignore the original 
>>> problem statement that the WG accepted. What specifically is your
>>>  comment on the current draft? As opposed to listing other 
>>> documents.
>>> - Mobile nodes to be both MIPv4 and MIPv6 capable. - Mobile nodes
>>>  to send two sets of signaling messages on every handoff. - 
>>> Network Administrators to run and maintain two sets of mobility 
>> Small phones can easily do both mip4 and mip6. With MIP4+MIP6 and 
>> connected to a v4-access the MN only does MIP4 messaging upon 
>> handover, not MIP6 messaging. MIP4+MIP6 do not involve running 
>> HMIP4+HMIP6.
>> 
> 
> (draft-ietf-mip6-dsmip-problem-02.txt)

It's not really my intention to spend a lot of time on this.  I have
posted remarks to the issues since miptrans.  The essence of it is in my
message, you seem to have missed it.

Additionally, citing double SA maintenance for v4 and v6 is forgetting
that MIP6 does that automatically for v6, so comes down to v4 only, as
before.

Additionally, citing implementation burdens for supporting MIP4+MIP6 is
forgetting that MIP6 extensions _are_ implementation effort to become
DS-MIPv6.

> and have been accepted by the majority of the WG.

majority-1.

> I do not think going over all this again is useful.

Same on my side.  I think I'll stop...

BTW, are you planning to confirm acceptation of your suggested modifs to
the NEMOv4 draft (it's submitted now)?

Alex

>>> the two protocols, each requiring its own management. - Double 
>>> the amount of configuration in the mobile node and the
> home
>>> agent (e.g., security associations). - Local network 
>>> optimizations for handovers will also need to be duplicated.
>> Local network optimizations have no relationship with either MIP4 
>> or MIP6, they work independently of the global mobility management
> protocol.
>>> => We're handling issues in terms of priority. If you want to 
>>> raise an issue please use the issue tracker as other people did.
>>>  This way it's registered and not lost.
>> There may be an alternative access though, if so please let me 
>> know. Otherwise I'll wait it comes up.
>> 
>>>> I have suggested we come back to having a problem statement. 
>>>> The short problem should be put in terms of "continuous 
>>>> sessions", "permanent reachable Home Address" and "IPv4 and 
>>>> IPv6".  I have suggested a number of times DS-MIPv6 should not
>>>>  deal with IPv4 continuous sessions, neither with IPv4
>>>> permanent reachable Home Addresses.
>>> If you want to register it as an issue then do so on the tracker
>>>  and explain the technical reasons for removing those features 
>>> from the draft.
>> _______________________________________________ Mip6 mailing list 
>> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:40:03 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Alex,
  FYI netlmm DT just issued their draft with 8 (yes, one more than 7) authors, while in HA reliability DT we issued the draft with one author and a list of contributors. So there are different approaches people take.
  I agree with Hesham in that this is not a big issue. I believe that that there are virtues of including everyone who contributed in the author list. Why not?
  Regards,

--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
To: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 4:04:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Mip6] Draft agenda for MIP6 WG meeting at IETF66

majority-1.

Alex