Subject: RE: [NSIS] Change proposal for Mobility Applicability draft

From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:55:50 +0100

Hi all,

Nobody has objected to the proposed changes of the mobility draft by
January 8th. I assume the silence as consent to go forward with the
changes, as proposed by the authors. 

  Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:58 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Seong-Ho Jeong; Hannes Tschofenig; Xiaoming Fu; 
> Sung-Hyuck Lee; Takako Sanda; Jukka MJ Manner
> Subject: RE: [NSIS] Change proposal for Mobility Applicability draft
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Thanks to the authors for pushing this forward on time!
> 
> Please review the proposed changes and comment on them 
> whether they are are to the WG or not.
> 
> Do send your comments (good, bad, etc) to the mailing list by 
> January 8th latest (to fit with the holiday schedules :). By 
> January 8th we should have a clear view if the proposed 
> changes can go in the draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>   Martin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Takako Sanda [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:24 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Xiaoming Fu; Seong-Ho Jeong; Sung-Hyuck Lee; Jukka MJ 
> Manner; Hannes Tschofenig
> Subject: [NSIS] Change proposal for Mobility Applicability draft
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> After the last IETF meeting, authors of NSIS Mobility 
> Applicability draft 
> (draft-ietf-nsis-applicability-mobility-signaling-05.txt) 
> have discussed how the draft should be cleaned up and which 
> topics are still missing.
> 
> The followings are discussion result for proposed changes. 
> Please review them and give your comments by 5th Jan 2007. If 
> no discussion has been made, authors will start editing text 
> based on the decision below.
> 
> 
> 1. Section 4 and 5 ("Basic Operations for Mobility Support" 
> and "Applicability Statement") should be divided into two parts and
> rewritten:-
> 
>   o "Main" part, which is focusing on examples and describing how
>   mobility is handled by the NSIS protocols. Topics here will be
>   route change handling and NSIS interwork with MIP v4/v6
>   (including tunneling management). This part must not include
>   "should work" or "may work" sort of description.
> 
>   o "Further Study" part, which introduces summary of potential
>   issues and possible approaches for other topics. These topics are
>   out-of-scope for discussing details, such as interwork with other
>   mobility protocols, multihoming, peer failure (and frequent
>   path change, may be)
> 
> 2. Description of mobility objects should be removed.
> 
> 3. Security part needs to be cleaned up. Concrete change plan 
> is still under discussions.
> 
> 4. As for new open issue, NAT/FW should be raised
>     "If a MN moves, IP addresses and routing change so that the 
>     packets enter and leave the network through a new NAT/FW node.
>     We need to open the old ports on this new NAT/FW node, and remove
>     the ones on the previous NAT/FW."
>   How would this work in real like?
>   The main difference for the NAT/FW work with respect is two-fold:
>    * We only use e2e refreshes. This makes things easier. 
>    * Most firewalls drop packets if a pinhole does not exist. 
>   We need to capture these two things.
> 
> 5. Detailed Operations in current texts should be moved to 
> Appendix or discussed in separate draft.
> 
> 6. Section 3 (Problem Statement) may need to be cleaned up 
> based on changes in main body.
> 
> BR,
> Takako
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
> 

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