Subject: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT document the WG document

From: "Roberts Phil-APR042" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:33:32 -0400

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:47:02 -0700

>work of the WG may be taking a too narrow perspective on the solution

So I'd like to start a thread to discuss why people who abstained based on a 
feeling that the WG was too narrowly focussed. What technical aspects of the 
DT draft lead you to believe that? The REQ document articulates several 
goals that require a broadly applicable protocol, and if there is something 
in the DT document that limits the applicability of the protocol, then we 
really need to address it.

            jak

---

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:56:34 -0500

Hi Phil,

I am not trying to articulate the reasoning behind the need for NetLMM
group to adopt PMIP as an option, however, I would like to present an
opinion about why many people and some SDOs want PMIP to be considered
as an option.

I believe some of the current specific deployment of PMIP makes many
people believe that PMIP can be used both as a Local mobility management
protocol and as a global mobility mechanism (after a natural not
extensive expansion of the existing MIPv6 protocol). The NetLMM DT draft
seems a well thought and written protocol which addresses almost all
major technical issues. However, many people would like to have some
guarantees that the support for NetLMM DT draft wont eliminate the
chance for PMIP to be fully considered and evaluated at the NetLMM group
as a Local Mobility Management Protocol. 

After the due diligence on PMIP, a fair comparison can be made and
people will be able to make a fair choice.

Regards,
Ahmad

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberts Phil-APR042 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:34 AM
> To: Netlmm
> 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 
> 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.
> 
> 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
>  
>