Hello Jouni and All,
I am trying to catch up with the DMM working group.
I must admit that I was NOT able to follow all the discussions but I felt
before being able to address the current practice and gap analysis, I needed to
understand the proposed requirements.
So, I went ahead and read the Requirements draft one more time and I found a
couple of things that are essential to be clarified in order to have a solid
ground for hopefully a solid proposals and solutions.
REQ1: Distributed deployment
IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by
DMM MUST enable distributed deployment for mobility management
of IP sessions so that traffic does not need to traverse
centrally deployed mobility anchors and thus can be routed in
an optimal manner.
[Ahmad]
In order to understand this requirement or may be in order for this requirement
to be clear and makes sense, I would like to understand what is meant by IP
session(s) in this context? And may be its relationship to the mobile node.
REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers when needed
DMM solutions MUST provide transparent mobility support above
the IP layer when needed. Such transparency is needed, for
example, when, upon change of point of attachment to the
Internet, an application flow cannot cope with a change in the
IP address. Otherwise, support for maintaining a stable home
IP address or prefix during handovers may be declined.
[Ahmad]
This a simple requirement that is phrased in a way that makes it a little more
complex than needed. However, my question here is: how this requirement is
related to the "IP session(s)" mentioned in the REQ1? I believe it is
fundamentally important to understand the relationship in order to be able to
move forward.
In addition, I believe the remaining requirements sort of straight forward and
clarification of the above two points is essential (at least to me)
Thanks for all the help!
Regards,
Ahmad
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jouni
Korhonen
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:25 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Julien Laganier
Subject: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis"
document
Folks,
We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for that.
The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" document to
serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two documents on
this topic to choose from:
[1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02
[2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01
and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for the WG
document.
Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. We
would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for your
selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from active
WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the other.
The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a longer
three week call now due the holiday season in between.
- Jouni & Julien
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
