Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call: Way Forward on NETLMM Solution

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:21:01 -0800

This is the official call to confirm the tentative decisions from the
IETF67 NETLMM meeting regarding the direction of the NETLMM solution
space going forward. The following questions (Q*) were asked and the
associated responses (R*) were received: 

Q1. Should the NETLMM WG adopt more than one approach?
R1. Yes - 10; No - Majority (strong consensus at the meeting on adopting
only one approach). 

Q2. Should the NETLMM WG adopt the DT solution?
R2. 30 in favor of DT solution

Q3. Should the NETLMM WG adopt a PMIP-based approach?
R3. 45 (+2 on jabber) in favor of PMIP-based approach

Q4. Should the NETLMM WG adopt a DHCP-based approach?
R4. 3 in favor of DHCP-based approach

Q5. Would you be comfortable with the WG exclusively pursuing a
PMIP-based approach?
R5. Yes - 50; No - 23

Based on the above, it was determined that we have "rough consensus" to
move forward with a PMIP-based approach. 

The results from the meeting are documented at
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/minutes/netlmm.txt. 

If you weren't in San Diego, please state your opinion either as
supporting this decision or disagreeing with it (but please provide a
rationale). If you were at the meeting in San Diego, it is not
imperative to respond, unless you have changed your mind since then, in
which case, again, please provide a rationale.

Thanks,
The Chairs

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:38:22 +0100

> move forward with a PMIP-based approach. 

I'm challenging this.  As long as we haven't asked the companion question
which would have been "Q6. Would you be comfortable with the WG exclusively
pursuing a DT-document-based approach?" we can't really say if pursuing
only the PMIP track is the conclusion.

We saw that modifying the question from Q3 to Q5 gathered a larger
assent from the community (from 45/30 to 50/23).  If asking question
Q6, formulated above, would resulted in a comparable shift, showing
say 35 comfortable with pursuing only the DT-track, while 37 would
not be comfortable with that, then it would still not be clear that
the community would want to go for only PMIP, excluding the DT-solution.

Of course, if the shift would be the opposite, we *would* have a clear
consensus.

Since this question wasn't asked, but really should have been asked in
order to have a clearcut decision, I'm challenging the tentative
decision made at the meeting, and requesting that consensus is judged
anew here on the list, rather than it being a matter of confirming the
meeting decision.

	Henrik

---

From: "Jean-Michel Combes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:08:24 +0100

Hi Vidya,

IMHO, it would be better to wait for new version of the different
official proposals before to decide which one is the best ... from a
technical point of view (i.e. clear specifications - the E from IETF
:).

Best regards.

JMC.

---

From: Jun Lei <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:55:09 +0100

Hi, all:

       PMIPv6 seems to be a very promising network-based solution.

       Anyway, we still need to wait and make efforts on clarifying the 
unclear mechanisms of PMIPv6 specification. Likely, the deployment of 
Proxy in access networks will be one of the focuses. Another is about 
the intra-/inter-domain handover. Is that right?

Cheers

Jun

-- 
Jun Lei
PhD Student

Address:
Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen
Institut fuer Informatik
Telematics Group
Lotzestrasse 16-18
37083 Goettingen 

Fax: +49 (551) 39-1 44 03
Tel: +49 (551) 39-1 35 78

Email: [email-masked]

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:44:24 +0100

I voted in San Diego, haven't changed my mind, and here's further rationale.

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> Q1. Should the NETLMM WG adopt more than one approach? R1. Yes - 10;
> No - Majority (strong consensus at the meeting on adopting only one
> approach).

No.

But what does the question mean?  I can see very well one draft pursued
Stds Track and other drafts experimental or informational.  The
rationale for this is related to the customer asking for it.  In no way
should a protocol requested by only one SDO be made Stds Track, for
obvious reasons.

> Q2. Should the NETLMM WG adopt the DT solution? R2. 30 in favor of DT
> solution

Yes, with more openness to suggestions.  As a  Stds Track.

> Q3. Should the NETLMM WG adopt a PMIP-based approach? R3. 45 (+2 on
> jabber) in favor of PMIP-based approach

Yes, it can go PMIP way, as informational or experimental.

> Q4. Should the NETLMM WG adopt a DHCP-based approach? R4. 3 in favor
> of DHCP-based approach

YEs.  It should use DHCP messaging for triggering the route (or tunnel)
update in the netlmm domain.

> PMIP-based approach? R5. Yes - 50; No - 23

No, absolutely no.  The WG had an official DT doing work, which was not
PMIP; based on reqs, sec and mn-ar interface.  PMIP has nothing of
these, as of yet.  We have no timeline for PMIP work, yet.  The
population of the WG hasn't changed much.

Some questions about PMIP approach weren't discussed in full detail, and
postponed for later.  For example the IPR aspects.  This is something
that may change course.

> Q6 [Henrik's]. Would you be comfortable with the WG exclusively 
> pursuing a DT-document-based approach?

Yes, absolutely, provided the DT doc is more open to suggestions.

Alex

---

From: "Von-Hugo, Dirk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:10:33 +0100

Dear all,
I mainly agree with Alex - he expressed my attitude very well, merci!

Personally I would have no problem with the DT draft to go also for experimental - but I think the good work provided by the group would prove to match all NetLMM goals in a better way than both other proposals PMIP and DHCP - perhaps with exception of protocol re-use issue.

BTW I found that in MIP6 WG presentation on PMIP http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/mip6-5/sld4.htm  it is stated that '... PMIP6 is not ... intended to solve the problem of localized mobility management'
But isn't this an intrinsic WG goal?

Best regards
Dirk 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Dezember 2006 13:44
An: Narayanan, Vidya
Cc: [email-masked]
Betreff: Re: [netlmm] Consensus Call: Way Forward on NETLMM Solution

No.

Alex

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:12:50 -0800

Vidya,

I was at the meeting, and I have to say that the vote
came across to me as a bit of a surprise.

The way I saw it, the Design Team acted in good-faith
execution of their wg charter by putting together what
is IMHO a very nice architecture, while I and my
colleagues developed an independent solution that we
felt best addressed our customer's needs. But, from my
perspective, the PMIP proposals sort of materialized
from out of nowhere then all of a sudden the IETF67
session was filled with PMIP supporters - many of whom
I have not seen active in these list discussions.

Now, I am not saying that PMIP shouldn't be taken under
consideration - only that it seemed to have come as a
last-minute addition to the ballot that perhaps did not
receive the same level of scrutiny by the working group
beforehand as was the case for the other proposals.

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:21 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call: Way Forward on NETLMM Solution

Thanks,
The Chairs

---

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:14:20 -0600

> From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:38 PM
> To: Narayanan, Vidya
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus Call: Way Forward on NETLMM Solution
> 
> 
> 
> > Based on the above, it was determined that we have "rough 
> consensus" 
> > to move forward with a PMIP-based approach.
> 
> I'm challenging this.  As long as we haven't asked the 
> companion question which would have been "Q6. Would you be 
> comfortable with the WG exclusively pursuing a 
> DT-document-based approach?" we can't really say if pursuing 

> 
> We saw that modifying the question from Q3 to Q5 gathered a 
> larger assent from the community (from 45/30 to 50/23).  If 
> asking question Q6, formulated above, would resulted in a 
> comparable shift, showing say 35 comfortable with pursuing 
> only the DT-track, while 37 would not be comfortable with 
> that, then it would still not be clear that the community 
> would want to go for only PMIP, excluding the DT-solution.
> 

[Ahmad]
I was at the San Diego meeting and voted for PMIP and I am not changing
my mind.

However, In order to give some background to how this came about and why
the group did not consider Q. No.6, I would like to give some more
details. I believe after the group reached a sort of "No clear
consensus", I remember very well that Margaret came to the microphone
and suggested that probably many people did not feel strongly one way or
another, i.e. which protocol to support and they still voted. She then
suggested that since PMIP got more votes, there is a possibility, in
order to break the deadlock, some people would change their vote and
vote for PMIP.

Then she proposed the following question as per the IETF67 netlmm wg
meeting minutes:
"
Margaret: Maybe we should ask whether we want to go with PMIP solution
exclusively.
"

Let us remember that this question was proposed with the results of
45/30 in mind and in order to give a chance to people who did not
feeling strongly one way or the other to support PMIP "exclusively" if
they choose to. That is exactly what happened.

On the other hand, if the total number of votes was around 73-75 and 50
VOTED in favor of an exclusive PMIP solution, how in the world if we
asked Q. No. 6, DT document would probably gets 37 votes?

Regards,
Ahmad

> Of course, if the shift would be the opposite, we *would* 
> have a clear consensus.
> 
> Since this question wasn't asked, but really should have been 
> asked in order to have a clearcut decision, I'm challenging 
> the tentative decision made at the meeting, and requesting 
> that consensus is judged anew here on the list, rather than 
> it being a matter of confirming the meeting decision.
> 
> 
> 	Henrik
>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:35:37 +0100

Hi Ahmad,

on 2006-12-13 23:14 Ahmad Muhanna said the following:
...
> I was at the San Diego meeting and voted for PMIP and I am not changing

Perfectly fine, nobody are asking you to.

> asked Q. No. 6, DT document would probably gets 37 votes?

The point is that Q5 was formulated less strongly than Q3:

It is perfectly possible that the opposite question which never
was asked also would have received a strong shift.  Maybe 50
people also would have said yes to this:

Q6. Would you be comfortable with the WG exclusively pursuing a
DT-document-based approach?

Maybe so, maybe not.  There's no way to know, and as long as the
opposite question was not asked, and not knowing the response, we
just can't assume that the response would have been anything - not
50, not 25, not 10.

This means that the only balanced question we have to indicate
consensus is Q2 and Q3, and that doesn't indicate a consensus.

	Henrik

---

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:59:42 -0600

Hi Henrik,

Regards,
Ahmad

> > On the other hand, if the total number of votes was around 
> 73-75 and 
> > 50 VOTED in favor of an exclusive PMIP solution, how in the 
> world if 
> > we asked Q. No. 6, DT document would probably gets 37 votes?
> 
> Q5. Would you be comfortable with the WG exclusively pursuing 
> a PMIP-based approach?
> 
> It is perfectly possible that the opposite question which 
> never was asked also would have received a strong shift.  
> Maybe 50 people also would have said yes to this:
> 
> Q6. Would you be comfortable with the WG exclusively pursuing 
> a DT-document-based approach?

[Ahmad]
I still believe that there was a clear consensus at the IETF67 NetLMM
meeting for pursuing PMIP as a NetLMM protocol. On the other hand, no
one can reverse the clock back and ask Q. No.6. However, people have a
choice and those who were supposed to vote for Q. No. 6, they still can
do so on the mailing list and let us move forward.

Thanks.
Ahmad

> 
> Maybe so, maybe not.  There's no way to know, and as long as 
> the opposite question was not asked, and not knowing the 
> response, we just can't assume that the response would have 
> been anything - not 50, not 25, not 10.
> 
> This means that the only balanced question we have to 
> indicate consensus is Q2 and Q3, and that doesn't indicate a 
> consensus.
> 
> 
> 	Henrik
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:59:42 -0600

Hi Henrik,

Regards,
Ahmad

[Ahmad]

Thanks.
Ahmad

---

From: "Narvaez, Paolo \(Paolo\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:00:32 -0600

I did not attend the San Diego meeting. I support the decision taken
there to go forward with PMIP only.

Network-based mobility using PMIP has several advantages over the DT
solution

1) It is a variation on an existing widespread IETF standard (MIP). No
need to design a new protocol.
2) Existing mobility elements (e.g., home agent) can be reused. No need
to create a new anchor element.
3) Strong interest in PMIP from other standards organizations.
4) Can be used for local and/or global mobility. No restriction on the
size of the area under mobility management.
5) Because some MNs do not have a MIP stack, PMIP is required anyway.

Regards,
Paolo 

-----Original Message-----
From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:21 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] Consensus Call: Way Forward on NETLMM Solution

Thanks,
The Chairs

---

From: Ashutosh Dutta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:13:27 -0500

Paolo, most of your comments are well taken. It makes sense to re(use) 
any existing simple protocol and enhance it to take care of the missing 
pieces that are required for netlmm. Thus making PMIP as PS track is 
probably a good idea.

However, we should also consider the possibility of putting other 
proposed drafts on informational or experimental track if those seem 
matured and technically feasible.

Regards
Ashutosh

---

From: "Julien Bournelle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:01:33 +0100

Hi all,

  I was not at the meeting. It is still unclear for me what I support.
I would prefer to wait for the PMIPv6-merged version to have an
opinion.

 Comments inline.

> need to design a new protocol.

 not sure that this is an argument now since the DT document exists.

> to create a new anchor element.

 I guess it is still unclear if mip6 HA won't need some modifications
to support pmip6.

 Julien B.

> size of the area under mobility management

---

From: "Narvaez, Paolo \(Paolo\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:18:44 -0600

Ashutosh, I agree. My remarks where made in the context of deciding on a
protocol for proposed standard track (as requested in Vidya's email),
and not in the general case. The DT document may be useful in many
instances. In fact, it might even co-exist with PMIP (e.g., DT for local
mobility and PMIP for global mobility). However, when deciding on a
single standard track protocol that requires interoperability and
widespread adoption, PMIP is the simplest path to provide network-based
mobility management with the fewest changes to current networks.

Regards,
Paolo

-----Original Message-----
From: Ashutosh Dutta [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:13 PM
To: Narvaez, Paolo (Paolo)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Consensus Call: Way Forward on NETLMM Solution

Regards
Ashutosh

> 2) Existing mobility elements (e.g., home agent) can be reused. No 
> need to create a new anchor element.

> R1. Yes - 10; No - Majority (strong consensus at the meeting on 
> adopting only one approach).
> 
> Based on the above, it was determined that we have "rough consensus" 
> imperative to respond, unless you have changed your mind since then, 
> in which case, again, please provide a rationale.
> 
> Thanks,
> The Chairs
>