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

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:20:43 -0500

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:27:14 -0700

> make. Tunneling or IP-in-IP is version specific, there are different RFCs 
> describing each. Broadcast does not exist in IPv6. And so on...
>

OK.

> Next, regarding MAG and LMA, simply put, I see no reason for introducing 

OK.

> Are you retreating from Phil's mail?

Not retreating. The purpose of the email was to start some discussion going 
on why the people who objected to the draft did so, so we could either fix 
it or try something different.

            jak