Subject: [netlmm] Consensus call to make draft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02.txt a WG draft

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 09:20:17 -0700

Folks,

Henrik has done a super job in editing the results of the interim meeting 
into the DT draft, keeping the list informed all the while. So, now it's 
time to consider whether to make the draft a WG draft. Please take a look at 
the draft and send a posting to the list with your opinion. You can find the 
draft here:

http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/dt-draft/draft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02.txt

until it is posted in the Internet Drafts repository.

Please remember that this consensus call is only whether or not to make the 
draft a WG draft, and that this decision does not lock in the current text. 
After a draft becomes a WG draft, it is still subject to discussion and 
modification based on WG consensus; in fact, it is expected that WG members 
take the time and make the effort to review the draft and make sure there 
are no technical problems.

The consenus call will remain open for a week until next Thurs. Oct. 12. 
Please try to post your opinion before then.

            jak 

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

---

From: "Mohamed Khalil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:30:49 -0500

in section 4.5 we are assuming that MAG is acting as a router. I think
we should include the possibility of MAG is acting as a bridge:

so the MN has a p-2-p link with the LMA. This model, I believe, adopted
by 3gpp (MN-SGSN-GGSN) where PDP is link between MN and GGSN, and SGSN
is considered as a bridge. Also, 3gpp2 (MN-RNC-PDSN) where PPP is link
between MN and PDSN and RNC is considered is a path through node/bridge.

I believe NETLMM should adopt all models especially that those models
already adopted by other standards such as 3gpp, 3gpp2 and implemented
in products.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:20 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] Consensus call to make
draft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02.txt a WG draft

Folks,

Henrik has done a super job in editing the results of the interim
meeting 
into the DT draft, keeping the list informed all the while. So, now it's

time to consider whether to make the draft a WG draft. Please take a
look at 
the draft and send a posting to the list with your opinion. You can find
the 
draft here:

http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/dt-draft/draft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-p
rotocol-02.txt

Please remember that this consensus call is only whether or not to make
the 
draft a WG draft, and that this decision does not lock in the current
text. 
After a draft becomes a WG draft, it is still subject to discussion and 
modification based on WG consensus; in fact, it is expected that WG
members 
take the time and make the effort to review the draft and make sure
there 
are no technical problems.

            jak

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:51:00 -0700

(Cross-posting to MIP6)

All,
I would like to understand how making this document a WG document
impacts any Proxy MIP6 solution that may be standardized at the IETF.
Jari's email on the MIP6 ML indicated that he would like to see this
discussion happen before a decision is made about the NETLMM DT
document. 

Personally, I think that the fundamental requirements are almost
identical in both cases. I think summarizing the differences in
requirements and discussing whether standardizing both solutions makes
sense would be worthwhile at this time. 

Thoughts? 

Vidya 

> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [netlmm] Consensus call to 
> makedraft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02.txt a WG draft
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Henrik has done a super job in editing the results of the 
> interim meeting into the DT draft, keeping the list informed 
> all the while. So, now it's time to consider whether to make 
> the draft a WG draft. Please take a look at the draft and 
> send a posting to the list with your opinion. You can find 
> the draft here:
> 
> Please remember that this consensus call is only whether or 
> not to make the draft a WG draft, and that this decision does 
> not lock in the current text. 
> After a draft becomes a WG draft, it is still subject to 
> discussion and modification based on WG consensus; in fact, 
> it is expected that WG members take the time and make the 
> effort to review the draft and make sure there are no 
> technical problems.
>

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:04:41 +0200

On Thursday 05 October 2006 18:20, James Kempf wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Henrik has done a super job in editing the results
> of the interim meeting into the DT draft, keeping
> the list informed all the while. So, now it's time
> to consider whether to make the draft a WG draft.
> Please take a look at the draft and send a posting
> to the list with your opinion. 

I support this draft becoming a work item of the NetLMM 
working group.

--julien

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:04:41 +0200

--julien

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:33:13 +0200

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> (Cross-posting to MIP6)
> 
> All, I would like to understand how making this document a WG 
> document impacts any Proxy MIP6 solution that may be standardized at 
> the IETF. Jari's email on the MIP6 ML indicated that he would like to
> see this discussion happen before a decision is made about the NETLMM
> DT document.
> 
> identical in both cases.

Except that reqs/ps and security context is precisely described in
netlmm WG items while for PMIPv6 we have no other reqs.

The netlmm problem statement document discusses problems with existing
(at that time) approaches to "netlmm" concepts - h/fmipv6, cellular IP,
gtp.  At the time of that writing the PMIPv6 documents did not yet exist
(draft-chowdhury-netmip6-00.txt and
draft-gundavelli-netlmm-mip6-proxy-00.txt)

Do you think the netlmm PS document should be updated to discuss issues
with netmip6 and with netlmm-mip6-proxy protocols?

I have some ideas in that space.  For example,
draft-gundavelli-netlmm-mip6-proxy-00.txt states that it improves
handover performance (because MN "just" does "normal" IPv6 attachment,
instead of mobility-related messaging).  Later on it states that MN uses
DHCP.  Using DHCP is known to be a strong bottleneck for handover
performance, with many implementations.  The DHCP issues for "netlmm"
concepts have been largely discussed here, and documented here.

> I think summarizing the differences in requirements and discussing 
> whether standardizing both solutions makes sense would be worthwhile
>  at this time.

Do you mean we should standardize PMIPv6 just because netlmm protocol is 
being pursued?

Alex

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 15:07:42 +0200

Hi Vidya,

On Friday 06 October 2006 00:51, Narayanan, Vidya 
> (Cross-posting to MIP6)

[ Perhaps this discussion should happen on a single
  ML? I am not though. ]

> All,
> I would like to understand how making this document
> a WG document impacts any Proxy MIP6 solution that
> may be standardized at the IETF. Jari's email on the 
> MIP6 ML indicated that he would like to see this
> discussion happen before a decision is made about
> the NETLMM DT document.

My understanding of Jari's note was slighty different. 
I understood that amongst other things he asked:

 - what are the requirements that are not fullfiled
   with today's solutions?

 - people interested in PMIP6 to talk to NetLMM WG 
   *now* if their requirements are close to what
   NetLMM does.

> Personally, I think that the fundamental
> requirements are almost identical in both cases.

Agree.

> I think summarizing the differences in requirements
> and discussing whether standardizing both solutions
> makes sense would be worthwhile at this time.

Discussing differences in requirements would definitely 
make sense. 

However, because as you noted they seems to be almost 
identical I do not think it makes sense to standardize 
both solutions -- that wouldn't be good from a 
standardization point of view.

Rather, those (supposedly few) requirements that are 
presently not fullfilled by a NetLMM solution should 
be worked on so that we satisfies all of them with a 
single protocol.

Best regards,

--julien

---

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 06:44:24 -0700

It is well known that I do not like NETLMM at all, whether it is done in
NETLMM or MIPv6 WG. Putting my personal opinion aside, however, I would
like to say this:

Let's assume that the requirements for NETLMM and PMIPv6 are virtually
identical, which I think is a reasonable assumption.

NETLMM is currently attempting to address these requirements by
designing a protocol from scratch.

A PMIPv6 based design would presumably define the delta from the
standard MIPv6 solution required. The solution should also be able to
re-use at least some of the extensions already defined in MIPv6 and
maybe even allow for MIPv6 and PMIPv6 mobiles and networks to coexist.
Such assumptions should, however, be scrutinized if/when PMIPv6 design
is done, to make sure they still whole water.

Redesigning things from scratch is some times a good thing but the new
design has to be significantly better to counteract the risk inherent
with any new approach. Green field designs are also best done by small
groups of people and they come with running code, rather than design by
committees (no offence to NETLMM).
Extending an existing protocol is always an easier and more palpable
approach. Arguably, when the delta between the old and the new approach
is not that significant, extending an existing protocol is highly
preferable. This way, it is easy for everyone to come up to speed with
the changes and gives everyone a warm fuzzy feeling about the whole
thing (whether such feeling is justified or not is another story).

I think proponents of PMIPv6 are making a mistake by pretending that
PMIPv6 will somehow be different from NETLMM. Instead there should be a
discussion about the benefits of extending the existing approach vs the
perceived risks involved with reinventing the wheel. If the majority of
the NETLMM crowed is willing to take the risk then I do not think you
can do much about it.

I still think that having two competing solutions in the IETF is a bad
idea, unless one of them becomes "experimental" so that the effort is
captured but it is clear that the IETF has only fully defined one thing!

In fact what I think is that the IETF does not need a solution to any of
this but I guess I have said this already :-)

Regards
George

> From: Julien Laganier [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 9:08 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: NETLMM and PMIPv6 (RE: [netlmm] Consensus call
tomakedraft-
> giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02.txt a WG draft)
> 
> Hi Vidya,
>

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:52:15 -0700

Putting the fact that George dislikes any kind of network-based mobility
aside :), I have to agree with a few of his points in the email below. 

Specifically, we should be having the discussion on what we can re-use
with a network-based mobility solution based on MIP6 vs. a total
re-design.

I will try to get a thread going on that topic shortly and hopefully, we
can make some progress in figuring this out and getting consensus. 

Vidya

> From: Tsirtsis, George [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 6:44 AM
> To: Julien Laganier; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: NETLMM and PMIPv6 (RE: [netlmm] Consensus 
> calltomakedraft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02.txt a WG draft)
> 
> It is well known that I do not like NETLMM at all, whether it 
> is done in NETLMM or MIPv6 WG. Putting my personal opinion 
> aside, however, I would like to say this:
> 
> Let's assume that the requirements for NETLMM and PMIPv6 are 
> virtually identical, which I think is a reasonable assumption.
> 
> NETLMM is currently attempting to address these requirements 
> by designing a protocol from scratch.
> 
> A PMIPv6 based design would presumably define the delta from 
> the standard MIPv6 solution required. The solution should 
> also be able to re-use at least some of the extensions 
> already defined in MIPv6 and maybe even allow for MIPv6 and 
> PMIPv6 mobiles and networks to coexist.
> Such assumptions should, however, be scrutinized if/when 
> PMIPv6 design is done, to make sure they still whole water.
> 
> Redesigning things from scratch is some times a good thing 
> but the new design has to be significantly better to 
> counteract the risk inherent with any new approach. Green 
> field designs are also best done by small groups of people 
> and they come with running code, rather than design by 
> Extending an existing protocol is always an easier and more 
> palpable approach. Arguably, when the delta between the old 
> and the new approach is not that significant, extending an 
> existing protocol is highly preferable. This way, it is easy 
> for everyone to come up to speed with the changes and gives 
> everyone a warm fuzzy feeling about the whole thing (whether 
> such feeling is justified or not is another story).
> 
> PMIPv6 will somehow be different from NETLMM. Instead there 
> should be a discussion about the benefits of extending the 
> existing approach vs the perceived risks involved with 
> reinventing the wheel. If the majority of the NETLMM crowed 
> is willing to take the risk then I do not think you can do 
> much about it.
> 
> I still think that having two competing solutions in the IETF 
> is a bad idea, unless one of them becomes "experimental" so 
> that the effort is captured but it is clear that the IETF has 
> only fully defined one thing!
> 
> In fact what I think is that the IETF does not need a 
> solution to any of this but I guess I have said this already :-)
> 
> Regards
> George
> 
> 
> > > impacts any Proxy MIP6 solution that may be standardized at the 
> > > IETF. Jari's email on the
> discussion happen 
> > > before a decision is made about the NETLMM DT document.
> > 
> > Discussing differences in requirements would definitely make sense.
> > 
> identical I do 
> > not think it makes sense to standardize both solutions -- that 
> > wouldn't be good from a standardization point of view.
> > 
> > Rather, those (supposedly few) requirements that are presently not 
> > fullfilled by a NetLMM solution should be worked on so that we 
> > satisfies all of them with a single protocol.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > --julien
> >

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:01:54 -0700

Hi Alex,

> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 5:33 AM
> To: Narayanan, Vidya
> Cc: James Kempf; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> to makedraft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02.txt a WG draft)
> 
> Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> > (Cross-posting to MIP6)
> > 
> > All, I would like to understand how making this document a 
> WG document 
> Except that reqs/ps and security context is precisely 
> described in netlmm WG items while for PMIPv6 we have no other reqs.
> 

I don't believe we need a separate requirements document. As I said, the
requirements in my view are the same as those that drove NETLMM in the
first place. In addition, I think PMIPv6 is aiming at a solution that
can provide maximum re-use of already defined functionality. While that
is a goal in NETLMM, it has not been realized in the DT protocol. Also,
there seem to be multiple interpretations of that goal - so, there is
not a high degree of clarity to the re-use goal. 

> The netlmm problem statement document discusses problems with 
> existing (at that time) approaches to "netlmm" concepts - 
> h/fmipv6, cellular IP, gtp.  At the time of that writing the 
> PMIPv6 documents did not yet exist (draft-chowdhury-netmip6-00.txt and

The latter document did exist and was taken as input by the DT. I have
to believe that the DT had a discussion about this approach vs a totally
new protocol - but, I can't speak for it, as I have not seen the DT
archives. 

> Do you think the netlmm PS document should be updated to 
> discuss issues with netmip6 and with netlmm-mip6-proxy protocols?
> 

No. Rather, we should be evaluating a solution that allows maximum
re-use of functionality defined for MIP6, as that is what seems to be
gaining momentum in the industry. 

> draft-gundavelli-netlmm-mip6-proxy-00.txt states that it 
> improves handover performance (because MN "just" does 
> "normal" IPv6 attachment, instead of mobility-related 
> messaging).  Later on it states that MN uses DHCP.  Using 
> DHCP is known to be a strong bottleneck for handover 

The discussion is not specifically about the solution in that draft. It
is about how much re-use of existing protocols and functionality should
be feasible from the protocol defined for network-based mobility -
re-use allows faster deployment and hence the interest in the industry.
OTOH, if we do an analysis and find that such a re-use is inefficient
and will hurt us in the long run, it is another story. In this case, I
think a number of people believe that the re-use is practical. 

> Do you mean we should standardize PMIPv6 just because netlmm 
> protocol is being pursued?
> 

No. It is a question of whether we want to allow a PMIPv6 solution to be
designed the right way, in a manner that can be used by multiple SDOs or
let each SDO define its own flavor of it. Otherwise, the onus is on us
to prove that the right solution for network-based mobility is in fact
what is described in draft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02. This study
needs to occur for any concrete proof of that - as of now, many people
are not seeing that. 

Vidya

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:06:58 -0700

Hi Julien, 

> From: julien laganier [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Julien Laganier
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 6:08 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Narayanan, Vidya; James Kempf; [email-masked]

I cross-posted, since the discussion on PMIPv6 was ongoing on MIP6. If
all the interested people are on both lists, I can limit this to just
NETLMM. But, I am not sure of that. 

>    *now* if their requirements are close to what

Quoting from Jari's email - "They (NETLMM) do not have an official WG
solution specification yet, but they will soon and I don't think they
expect to keep in the WG process for too long after that. If you want to
have an effect the time to voice your opinion is now." 

That seems to imply the dependency. In any case, we should be having
this discussion. 

> be worked on so that we satisfies all of them with a 

Ideally, I would agree with you. But, we should look at the differences
in requirements and make a decision. I hope we can hash this all out
among all the people working on NETLMM and PMIPv6 respectively. 

Regards,
Vidya

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:17:50 +0200

Hi,

on 2006-10-05 18:20 James Kempf said the following:
[...}
> So, now it's 
> the draft and send a posting to the list with your opinion.
[...]

For the record, (not surprising since I'm on the design team which
has produced the document, but it's good to have it explicitly said)
I'm in favour of the adoption of draft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02
as a working group document and starting point for the working group
protocol discussions.

	Henrik

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:51:12 -0700

Hello,

I would like the NETLMM - PMIPv6 situation resolved
before going ahead on this draft. there is a real
deployment scenario for PMIPv6.

Vijay

James Kempf wrote:
> meeting into the DT draft, keeping the list informed all the while. So, 
> now it's time to consider whether to make the draft a WG draft. Please 
> take a look at the draft and send a posting to the list with your 
> opinion. You can find the draft here:
> 
> the draft a WG draft, and that this decision does not lock in the 
> current text. After a draft becomes a WG draft, it is still subject to 
> discussion and modification based on WG consensus; in fact, it is 
> expected that WG members take the time and make the effort to review the 
> draft and make sure there are no technical problems.
>

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:55:37 -0700

So can we interpret that as "no"?

I'd like to separate the discussion of whether people want to see the design 
team draft become a WG draft from the discussion about whether the WG should 
do something based on Mobility Header signaling. Obviously, they are linked, 
but we do have an official consensus call running currently, and the WG 
chairs need to get an accurate assessment of whether there is WG consensus 
behind the DT draft.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus call to make 

>> time to consider whether to make the draft a WG draft. Please take a look 
>> at the draft and send a posting to the list with your opinion. You can 
>> find the draft here:
>>
>> the draft a WG draft, and that this decision does not lock in the current 
>> text. After a draft becomes a WG draft, it is still subject to discussion 
>> and modification based on WG consensus; in fact, it is expected that WG 
>> members take the time and make the effort to review the draft and make 
>> sure there are no technical problems.
>>

---

From: "Silverton Aron-C1710C" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:04:56 -0400

James,

I am in favor of making this a WG draft.  I see no reason why any other
discussions currently taking place on the list should impede this.  I'm
sure that there will be plenty of time for discussion after this becomes
a WG draft.

Regards,

Aron

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:15:49 -0700

> So can we interpret that as "no"?

correct.

Vijay

> 
> I'd like to separate the discussion of whether people want to see the 
> design team draft become a WG draft from the discussion about whether 
> the WG should do something based on Mobility Header signaling. 
> Obviously, they are linked, but we do have an official consensus call 
> running currently, and the WG chairs need to get an accurate assessment 
> of whether there is WG consensus behind the DT draft.
> 
>            jak
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vijay Devarapalli" 
> <[email-masked]>
>>> meeting into the DT draft, keeping the list informed all the while. 
>>> So, now it's time to consider whether to make the draft a WG draft. 
>>> Please take a look at the draft and send a posting to the list with 
>>> your opinion. You can find the draft here:
>>>
>>> Please remember that this consensus call is only whether or not to 
>>> make the draft a WG draft, and that this decision does not lock in 
>>> the current text. After a draft becomes a WG draft, it is still 
>>> subject to discussion and modification based on WG consensus; in 
>>> fact, it is expected that WG members take the time and make the 
>>> effort to review the draft and make sure there are no technical 
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> The consenus call will remain open for a week until next Thurs. Oct. 
>>> 12. Please try to post your opinion before then.
>>>
>>>            jak
>>>

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:32:09 -0700

I would like to say "no" as well at the moment. 

Personally, I don't think the timing is right for this consensus call,
given that we have the PMIPv6 discussions underway. Given they are
linked, we need to have that discussion before we know what the right
thing to do here is.  

Vidya

> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:16 PM
> To: James Kempf
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus call tomake 
> > running currently, and the WG chairs need to get an accurate 
> > assessment of whether there is WG consensus behind the DT draft.
> > 
> >            jak
> > 
> >> I would like the NETLMM - PMIPv6 situation resolved before going 
> >> ahead on this draft. there is a real deployment scenario 
> for PMIPv6.
> >>
> >> Vijay
> >>
> >> James Kempf wrote:
> >>> Folks,
> >>>
> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/dt-draft/draft-giaretta-netlmm-
> >>> dt-protocol-02.txt until it is posted in the Internet Drafts 
> >>> repository.
> >>>

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:44:45 -0700

Vidya,

We have a consensus call underway. We need to conclude it with a reasonable 
idea of whether there is WG support for the DT draft or not. People who 
don't agree with the draft can express their opinion, as you have, as well 
as people who do agree with it. If necessary, we can lengthen the call out 
for another week or so, but the WG really does need to come to some kind of 
conclusion about the protocol, one way or the other, rather soon if we are 
to meet our deadline of completing the protocol draft by the end of the 
year.

That should not stop people in parallel from dicussing the merits/drawbacks 
of a PMIP solution, since that may be a factor in some people's decision. 
You've started a thread on that and I would encourage people who have 
something to say on the topic to contribute to that thread.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
To: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>; "James Kempf" 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Consensus call tomake 
draft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02.txt a WG draft

Vidya

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:07:21 -0700

I have read the -02 document, and there are a number
of technical and high-level comments I could make. At
a very high-level perspective, there needs to be some
discussion of relation to earlier works and current
practices, but I am going to refrain from commenting
further at this time.

In terms of the consensus call, I am abstaining for
now but I have to say I am concerned that the work
of this group seems to be trending toward a more
narrowly-focused set of use-case scenarios than
necessary (maybe I'm wrong).

Fred
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:20 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] Consensus call to

Folks,

            jak

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:15:46 +0200

James Kempf wrote:
>  design team draft become a WG draft from the discussion [...]

Yes, please make this a WG item.

We have in the past, and will certainly in the future, discuss many
topics about how to better do network based localized (or lightweight)
mobility management.

At this time - make this document a WG item.  All the good ingredients
are there.

Alex

---

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:30:44 +0200

I support making the DT draft a WG document.

marco

James Kempf wrote:

> make the draft a WG draft, and that this decision does not lock in the 
> expected that WG members take the time and make the effort to review 
> the draft and make sure there are no technical problems.
>

---

From: Katsutoshi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:17:10 +0900

Hi all,

I support the doc to be WG document as a basement for further discussion. 

At the same time, I don't think at all the consensus call limits the
modification later on, but I believe it is a good starting point to
update by reflecting the comments/discussions from WG. Regardless of
what protocol it is based on, it captures good technical issues a
network based protocol will face and have to be solved. 

Katsutoshi

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:20:17 -0700

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:53:28 +0900

Hi,

I was a bit late expressing my opinion, but I support this doc as a WG 
document. There are still open issues like whether NetLMM signaling 
should be transport-based or MH-based, but the essential parts such as 
addressing, signaling sequences and security stuff are laid out, which I 
believe are somewhat independent from the difference between the current 
NetLMM protocol and the MIP-based one, and unresolved issues are 
itemized. I think we should more listen to other SDOs requirements and 
the NetLMM protocol may end up becoming substantially different from the 
current shape, but this doc can be a very good start point at least. 
There is definitely a demand on a network-based mobility management and 
IETF is playing a crucial role of providing such a protocol in a timely 
manner. Otherwise, each SDO will create its own version and obviously 
this is not a good scenario.

Regards,
-- Hidetoshi

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:26:27 -0700

Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:

> There are still open issues like whether NetLMM signaling 
> should be transport-based or MH-based, 

is this an open issue in the design team? I was
under the impression it is not. I (including
many others) have been proposing this forever.

Vijay

---

From: "Roberts Phil-APR042" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:57:08 -0400

It's not open in the DT as far as I know.  It was decided pretty early
on.

> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:26 AM
> To: Hidetoshi Yokota
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus callto make draft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-
> protocol-02.txt a WG draft
> 
> Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:
>

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:20:54 +0900

Dear Vijay,

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:
> 
>> There are still open issues like whether NetLMM signaling should be 
>> transport-based or MH-based, 
> 

This issue was settled in the DT, but according to the recent discussion 
on the ML, this hasn't been settled, yet. I meant that from the WG's 
viewpoint, this is still an open issue.

Sorry for my lack of explanation,
-- 
Hidetoshi