Subject: [Mipshop] update and thoughts on Korea agenda

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:53:30 +0100

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:05:55 -0800

Hi Gab,

Unless Pete has something he wants to say about FMIP over 802.11, is there
any point in meeting?

            jak

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:15:08 +0100

>Unless Pete has something he wants to say about FMIP over 802.11, is there
 That's why I'm asking Pete.

---

From: "Seok J. Koh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:03:35 +0900

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

---

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

---

From: "Jean-Michel COMBES" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 19:39:37 +0100

Hi,

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]De la part de
> James Kempf
> Envoyé : jeudi 5 février 2004 18:55
> À : Seok J. Koh; gabriel montenegro; [email-masked]
> Cc : [email-masked]
> Objet : Re: [Mipshop] update and thoughts on Korea agenda
>
>

What do you mean by 'location privacy'?
- Revision of RFC 3041 (but it's an IPv6 WG's goal) ?
- RFC 3041-bis mobility based ?
- other ?

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

Best regards.

JMC.

France Telecom R&D - DTL/SSR
Jean-Michel COMBES, Internet/Intranet Security
E-Mail : [email-masked]
Phone +33 (0)1 45 29 45 94, Fax +33 (0)1 45 29 65 19

> > And discuss the next step of MIPSHOP and then select
> appropriate items for
> further work, if agreed.
> >

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:44:42 +0100

>And discuss the next step of MIPSHOP and then select appropriate items for further work, if agreed.
We actually had that discussion in Minneapolis. Please see "WG Discussion"
in http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03nov/141.htm

At the time the conclusion taking into consideration the AD feedback was
that we would not consider taking on any other items until we were done
with all our items. And then we might think about it again.

At the time we didn't yet have mobopts, so we did not have a home for 
all this
work just yet. But now we do, and I'm assuming the charter of mobopts
allows folks to continue this work there.

Actually, there have been  a number of individual submissions lately
with titles like "draft-<name>-mipshop-*" which I'd urge folks to
consider renaming "draft-<name>mobopts-*" and taking to that forum.
One advantage is that we hope to attract more IEEE folks there than in 
mipshop,
and having more L2 clue is a definite advantage.

>I do not think the lifespan of the MIPSHOP will be so short 
>
The charter and the milestones as published are explicitly targetting a 
short WG
(end by April). We may not hit that but I hope we won't extend much more.
So yeah, that has been the idea all along.

Until then I suggest we operate by default in mobopts. We should take 
advantage
of the upcoming mobopts meeting in Korea to jump start discussion of these
issues. We still have a few months until mipshop is closed down, and if 
between
now and then something is identified as very high priority we could consider
rechartering mipshop to take it in.

Folks, we have MOBOPTS now, let's use it and discuss there most of the 
issues at
hand.

Perhaps when mobopts is done with these items the resultant protocol(s) 
will be ready
to become standards track in an IETF WG (mipshop or perhaps another). 
Perhaps
this standards track protocol will have a fast address assignment scheme 
built-in
for FMIP, perhaps FMIP and HMIP will be combined, pehaps security will be
better thought out and more stream-lined. What I suggest is that the 
investigation of
these (starting from the base-line protocols produced in mipshop) be 
done initially in
MOBOPTS.

-gabriel

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:45:50 -0800

> - RFC 3041-bis mobility based ?

No idea. Location privacy was brought up as a possible topic in Minneapolis.
Presumably, a BOF would discuss this in more detail.

            jak

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 11:53:40 -0800

Hi,

> allows folks to continue this work there.

Yes, the mobopts charter solicits enhancements to fmip, hmip among
others.

> and having more L2 clue is a definite advantage.

Submissions to mobopts are welcome. According to the current
agenda, we will have a 2 hour slot.

> to become standards track in an IETF WG (mipshop or perhaps another).

I would like to see proposals in Mobopts to have a clear path towards
IETF. Indeed, in the call for proposals note sent to the Mobopts list,
we emphasized this. So, we could start with various enhancements
being proposed in [mipshop], have interesting discussions (using some
empirical resuls, analysis, simulation,.) and arrive at results which can
then be standardized in IETF.

Regards,

-Rajeev

---

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: "Seok J. Koh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:31:44 +0900

Dear James and Rajeev,

I understand your concerns very well :-)

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.

Please correct my points, if any.

Seok J. Koh

---

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

> 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

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 00:37:53 +0100

Folks, as you can see from ID tracker, LMM is registered as "publication 
requested".

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi

We've seen the revision of FMIP appear, but we're still waiting on 
Rajeev's summary of the latest changes
due to WG last call.

Yesterday Feb 6 I submitted FMIPv6 to the AD's for consideration as 
experimental RFC, so
that should soon be reflected in ID tracker as well.

We've seen the corresponding list from Hesham on HMIPv6, and should 
hopefully soon see the latest
version of the draft appear.

Next week I'll be off of email reach so I won't be sending HMIPv6 off to 
the AD's until the week after
that at best.

Pete will have the FMIPv6 over 802.11 draft ready by the cut-off (but 
probably not much before that).
This means we won't have much time to discuss it and digest it before Korea.

Hence, I don't believe we actually have any *chartered* items to discuss 
in Korea. Accordingly,
there's no real reason for us to meet.

If everything goes well, we will discuss the 802.11 draft on the list 
and would, in the best of all
cases, be ready for a WG last call in March.

The above means we're running about a month behind schedule, which is 
actually not too bad.

Finally, I encourage authors of related drafts to pursue presentation 
slots in MOBOPTS.

-gabriel