Subject: RE: Issues splitting/consensus - Re: [NSIS] Details about NSIS at IETF 58

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:23:58 +0200

Hi Jukka,

> The authors of the various mobility drafts listed by John could meet in
> Minneapolis, e.g. on Sunday, after the reception, to discuss these issues
> before the actual NSIS WG meetings. We could, for example, try to agree on 
> an initial set of issues to discuss in the draft, and assign responsible 
> section editors, and an overall editor.

I fully support this.  If this is acceptable, then the results could
be discussed at the NSIS meeting.  I think this is a much better
use of time, then presenting overlapping individual documents.

Does anyone else have any comments on this?

John

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

---

From: Xiaoming Fu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:14:31 +0100

Hi John, Jukka,

It would be nice that we work together a single document regarding 
mobility and move things on. I also agree that mobility concerns with 
route change and tunneling; is it a little too overloaded for this 
document to cover general routing, multi-homing or general tunnel issues 
as well?

(Unfortunately I will be not able to attend the Minneapolis meeting due 
to personal reasons. However, I am interested in this work and would 
like to participate in the discussions through emails.)

Best regards,
Xiaoming

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 16:24:13 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

I basically try to look at things with the KISS principle, and my initial
assumptions are that mobility, routing, and multi-homing have much in
common once we think about them properly and with an open mind. I wouldn't
want to have several different documents discussing NTLP+NSLP and specific
scenarios. Of course, it might happen that we end up realizing that
certain issues are too complex and need their own documents. Still, I
would start with the mentioned issues and see from there.

Regards,
Jukka

---

From: Paulo Mendes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:11:28 +0100

Hi Jukka,

I also agree that something has to be done about the mobility-related 
drafts, since they have overlapping issues. However, I'm not convinced 
right now that analyzing mobility, multihoming and routing changes in 
the draft will lead us to a simpler document, complying with the KISS 
principle. To start from, because IMO the mobility issue by itself is 
already very complex, as we tried to show in our analysis draft.
However, I think that we need to start working on the mobility issues 
that overlap in the presented drafts to achieve the goal of 
understanding how can NSIS be extended to mobile environments. For 
instance, I saw that your draft as a more general definition of 
crossover router.
Hence, I agree with Robert when he says "I think we are talking about 
here is analysis work which will feed into defining the functionality 
that is required in the basic NSIS protocols themselves". This is, I 
agree that we must not include by now any discussion about how to 
implement any particular solution.

I don't see why shouldn't we work in a mobility analysis draft and a 
multihoming analysis draft (by nature these are two different things). 
If after this analysis (divide to conquer principle :)), we realize that 
a common solution can be achieved, than we should work in a common 
solution draft. If not, just continue in separate ways.
In what concerns routing changes, if they are due to the movement of 
end-hosts, this topic is naturally included in the mobility analysis. 
However, IMO routing changes "in the interior of the network", for 
instance due to load balancing and link failure, should be considered in 
the basic NSIS, since they do not happen only in mobile environments.

I tend to disagree with you in what concerns the open issues. If you do 
not identify open issues by now you will have to do it late. Besides, an 
efficient solution for mobility within NSIS needs to be aware of open 
issues if it wants to be the next step in signaling. From the issues 
mentioned, resource discovery has to do also with the e2e new path and 
not only with the new access network. Only the latter is done by CARD. 
In what concerns pre-reservations, you have to deal with this sooner or 
latter if you want to get good quality levels for multimedia 
applications while moving. I'm not saying that this is easy or not, or 
that it should be included in NSIS. I'm just saying that this is an open 
issue.

In what concerns Minneapolis:
- Agree that the authors of the different drafts should meet in 
Minneapolis for further discussion (unfortunately I cannot attend this 
IETF meeting). This discussion should be extended to this mailing list.
- About the presentations, probably it is a little late to get a 
consensus among authors in order to make a efficient join presentation, 
but I think that if this could be done, it would be most profitable.

Cheers,
Paulo

-- 
Paulo Mendes
DoCoMo Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH
Landsberger Str. 312
80687 Munich, Germany
Tel. +49-89-56824-226
Fax. +49-89-56824-300
E-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.docomoeurolabs.de/