Subject: RE: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT document theWGdocument

From: "Kent Leung \(kleung\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:45:12 -0700

Hi Behcet.  

The DT draft attempted to clarify where IPv4 or IPv6 are used.  For
example, the Prefix Allocation Option has description for the subtypes
for IPv4 or IPv6 addresses and Data Transport Option has IPv6-in-IPv6
and IPv4-in-IPv6.  I agree that there may be further clarifications to
support IPv4 MNs.

To re-interate what James said, the MAG and LMA are functional entities
and not new boxes.  They can be in an existing boxes such as AR, FA, HA,
etc.

Kent 

-----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 6:21 AM
To: James Kempf
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT document
theWGdocument

OK, let me clarify:
DT draft should make it explicit which text applies to IPv4 and which to
IPv6, otherwise claiming that everything works is a claim anybody can
make. Tunneling or IP-in-IP is version specific, there are different
RFCs describing each. Broadcast does not exist in IPv6. And so on...

Next, regarding MAG and LMA, simply put, I see no reason for introducing
two more new boxes.

Are you retreating from Phil's mail?

--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:42:06 PM
Subject: Re: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT document the
WGdocument

Behcet,

I'm somewhat puzzled by your response. Phil's message is intended to
start a discussion about why the people who came out against the DT
draft did so, so we can understand their technical objections and work
towards addressing them. We did not intend to indicate that we had made
a decision. The vote was about 15 to 6 for the draft, so if we were
going based on the number of people who like the draft, we could declare
rough concensus. However, the people with technical objections may have
spotted something the DT didn't, so we think it is prudent to engage in
a conversation.

I gather from your note that your primary objection is to introducing
new terminology. One of the reasons to introduce new terminology is
because the architecture is new. LMA and MAG indicate functional
architectural entites.
It seems you feel these are the same as the entites in Mobile IP.
However, if you examine the DT draft closely, you'll see that their
functions are in some cases quite different. In other cases, the names
used in the MIP community - such as AR - are actually network reference
architecural entites that can contain multiple functional entities. An
AR can, for example, contain a NAS. It could also contain a MAG. And for
MAP, we originally called the LMA a MAP, but were requested by the HMIP
folks to change the name to avoid confusion. So it seems some MIP folks
prefer new names. 
And it
makes sense from a technical standpoint too, since the LMA is
functionally different in important ways.

       jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:57 AM
Subject: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT document the
WGdocument

 >I welcome this decision and congratulate Phil and James.
 >
 > The DT document is not only introducing non mobility header based  >
transport but it is also introducing two new boxes called MAG and LMA.
 > The transport introduced is not making the protocol IP-version
agnostic as  > I explained before.
 > Regarding the new boxes, it has been taking IP mobility community
years to  > digest the earlier boxes of HA, FA, AR, MAP. Now should we
spend how much  > more time for the MAG and LMA and multiple MAGs,
multiple LMAs and so on?
 >
 > I would favor options 1 and 2 and keep Option 4 (especially consider
the  > host route based approaches that have been ruled out too quickly
at the  > onset).
 >
 > Regards,
 >
 > --behcet
 >
 > ----- Original Message ----
 > From: Roberts Phil-APR042 <[email-masked]>  > To: Netlmm
<[email-masked]>  > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:33:32 AM  >
Subject: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT document the WG
> document  >  > Although there were more folks who voiced support of
making the design  > team document the working group document than there
were against, we  > don't feel that we can call a consensus in favor of
adopting the design  > team document until we better understand the
nature of the objections.
 > So we'd like your help in articulating objections to the DT document,
or  > making sure that we correctly hear what the objections are.  I
believe  > the objections fall into three categories, and a couple of
folks didn't  > say one way or another but voiced a fourth concern:
 >
 > 1.  The WG should use proxy MIP6 as a baseline for doing this work
going  > further.  It would probably be good to get the reasoning behind
this (I  > think I've heard a couple of different reasons, but it would
be better  > for someone who favors this to articulate it).
 >
 > 2.  It's not clear whether we should use the design team document or
a  > proxy MIP6 approach and it's better to get further clarification
(from  > other SDOs perhaps?) before adopting one document or another.
 >
 > 3.  The WG should consider reusing some part of MIP6 as the baseline
for  > the protocol.  I believe that George and Vidya both articulated
this  > perspective and the idea is that the WG should consider reusing
> specifically the mobility header because protocol specs are already  >
written and extensions or options for the mobility header are already  >
defined.  But this perspective does NOT say that we should necessarily
> reuse MIP6 or adopt proxy MIP6.
 >
 > 4.  (Abstention) Fred articulated a different perspective in his  >
abstention and MK raised a similar concern I think, and that's that the
> work of the WG may be taking a too narrow perspective on the solution
> being put forth.
 >
 > Have I accurately captured what people are saying?
 >
 > I intend to send a response to Vidya's email of last Friday with some
> questions to better clarify the tradeoffs there.  I'll get this going
> later today.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Phil

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

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

---

From: "Sangjin Jeong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:30:45 +0900

Hi Kent,

We have analyzed DT protocol if it can be used in an IPv4 infrastructure 
without any modifications of the protocol. The requirement of DT protocol 
to support IPv4-IPv6 NetLMM domains handover is also analyzed.

Now, we are preparing for a document based on our analysis results. 
Unfortunately, since the cutoff date for initial draft passed, it might not be
possible to publish the document before San Diego meeting. 
However, we can present our analysis results in San Diego, if possible.

Regards,
- Sangjin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kent Leung (kleung)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:45 PM
Subject: RE: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT documenttheWGdocument

Hi Behcet.  

Kent 

-----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 6:21 AM
To: James Kempf
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT document
theWGdocument

OK, let me clarify:

--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:42:06 PM
Subject: Re: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT document the
WGdocument

Behcet,

       jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:57 AM
Subject: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT document the
WGdocument