Subject: RE: successful termination?

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 09:10:28 -0700

> In my opinion, this discussion has shown that there would be useful work
> to do for a continued Shim6 working group.  In particular Marcelo's
> proposal to evolve Shim6 as a locator-pair-providing substrate for
> multi-path TCP is a very good idea.  One may even go a step further and
> provide a similar service also for UDP-based applications.

Isn't that an argument for closing SHIM6 and chartering a new group with a new mission?

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 03:43:06 +1000

> Isn't that an argument for closing SHIM6 and chartering a new group  

But SHIM6 works at the IP level Christian, so the simultaneous use of  
a number of locator pairs in supporting TCP  also allows UDP flows to  
utilize the same service. From that perspective I don't see why the  
delta of effort here in incorporating UDP crosses some magic threshold  
at this point that forces the IETF to perform a WG shuffle.

   Geoff

---

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 10:41:23 -0700

> Isn't that an argument for closing SHIM6 and chartering a new group  
> with a
> new mission?

Christian -

I agree that the proposed new work items are non-trivial extensions to  
the
prior work of Shim6.  Hence, pursuing the new work items with the  
existing
working group and charter will likely not be possible.  This said, an
alternative to creating a new working group could be to re-charter  
Shim6 --
which, of course, is very similar to creating a new working group.

- Christian

Delivery-date: Mon, 04 May 2009 17:43:37 +0000
Cc: shim6 <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
To: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: successful termination?
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 10:41:23 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]

> Isn't that an argument for closing SHIM6 and chartering a new group  
> with a
> new mission?

Christian -

I agree that the proposed new work items are non-trivial extensions to  
the
prior work of Shim6.  Hence, pursuing the new work items with the  
existing
working group and charter will likely not be possible.  This said, an
alternative to creating a new working group could be to re-charter  
Shim6 --
which, of course, is very similar to creating a new working group.

- Christian

Delivery-date: Sun, 03 May 2009 17:44:29 +0000
Cc: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>, shim6 <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
To: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: successful termination?
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 03:43:06 +1000
Sender: [email-masked]

   Geoff

Delivery-date: Sun, 03 May 2009 16:12:53 +0000
From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
To: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>, shim6 <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
CC: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 09:10:28 -0700
Subject: RE: successful termination?
Accept-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Sender: [email-masked]

> provide a similar service also for UDP-based applications.

Isn't that an argument for closing SHIM6 and chartering a new group with a =
new mission?

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Shinta Sugimoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 19:05:50 +0900

Hi,

I am sorry for the delayed response. Let me state my opinion about the 
SHIM6 WG.

I, as an editor of the multihome shim API draft [1], am willing to 
complete the work, i.e., to produce an informational RFC document.  The 
API is intended to provide the ability of locator management for 
applications, and it is designed to provide common features for HIP and 
SHIM6.  The activity level of the API document has been low for a long 
while.  To our knowledge, there is no major issues left.  We need to ask 
HIP/SHIM6 implementers to review the document and get feedbacks, and 
incorporate necessary changes.

W.r.t. the next step of the SHIM6 WG, I personally have no strong 
opinion as I have limited chances to participate IETF meetings 
unfortunately.  Excuse me for asking a basic question, but does the 
above (producing an informational RFC document from a WG draft) requires 
WG to exist?  If so, I would vote for 3.  Otherwise (I mean, I assume 
that technical discussions can be made over email), I will vote for 1.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api-08

Regards,
Shinta

Jari Arkko wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> As you may have noticed, all three base Shim6 documents have now been 
> approved after extensive edits from IESG reviews. This is obviously a 
> very happy outcome even if it took a long time. Thank you everyone who 
> was involved in making this happen!
> 
> Last week I when I met the chairs and lead authors I asked what they 
> believe should happen next. A lively discussion followed about the 
> status of the technology, the WG, and its few remaining WG documents. 
> But our main conclusion was that the working group participants should 
> tell us what they have in mind.
> 
> Here's a couple of different alternatives:
> 
> 1. Declare success and close the WG. The most important work now is 
> implementation, testing, and deployments. The WG is not needed at this 
> moment, and if it will later be needed, it is easy to create a 
> maintenance WG. Or if a new effort for some bigger new piece of 
> functionality is needed, the proper way to do that is through a BOF 
> anyway. Question: how many implementations exist? Which ones are worked 
> on actively? Is there any deployment or trial experience to report?
> 
> 2. Put the WG into sleep for a year or two, and return when there's 
> additional experience.
> 
> 3. Work on the most important one(s) of the remaining WG documents 
> (locator-pair-selection, api, applicability). Which one? Is there energy 
> to do the work, including WG participants doing reviews, commenting on 
> issues, etc?
> 
> 4. Do something else that is important for Shim6. What?
> 
> We would like to move forward with this in a couple of weeks. The WG 
> will either be closed or rechartered. Let us know if you are interested 
> and if so, what you believe should be done.
> 
> Jari
> 
> 
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 13:18:55 +0300

Thanks for your feedback. I'm responding to your process question below.

> above (producing an informational RFC document from a WG draft) 
> requires WG to exist?  If so, I would vote for 3.  Otherwise (I mean, 
> I assume that technical discussions can be made over email), I will 
> vote for 1.

Formally, nothing requires a WG to exist. Area Directors can sponsor 
documents even to standards track without the existence of a working 
group. But of course the issue is whether the existence of a WG helps in 
arranging discussions about the document. Often it does, because there 
will be chairs asking for last calls, possibly more people are going to 
be interested in tracking list discussions of an existing WG, the only 
way to have a face-to-face discussion in a meeting is to have a WG, and 
so on.

Jari

>> very happy outcome even if it took a long time. Thank you everyone 
>> who was involved in making this happen!
>>
>> But our main conclusion was that the working group participants 
>> should tell us what they have in mind.
>>
>> implementation, testing, and deployments. The WG is not needed at 
>> this moment, and if it will later be needed, it is easy to create a 
>> anyway. Question: how many implementations exist? Which ones are 
>> worked on actively? Is there any deployment or trial experience to 
>> report?
>>
>> (locator-pair-selection, api, applicability). Which one? Is there 
>> energy to do the work, including WG participants doing reviews, 
>> commenting on issues, etc?
>>
>> will either be closed or rechartered. Let us know if you are 
>> interested and if so, what you believe should be done.
>>
>> Jari
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

---

From: Shinta Sugimoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:52:36 +0900

Hi Jari,

Thanks for the response.  Then I believe we (co-authors of shim API 
draft) can pursue improving the documents by email discussions.  As I 
mentioned, the remaining task is to get feedbacks from HIP/SHIM6 
implementers and update the document accordingly.

Regards,
Shinta

>>> interested and if so, what you believe should be done.

_______________________________________________
shim6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6

---

From: Shinta Sugimoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:52:36 +0900

Hi Jari,

Regards,
Shinta