Jouni, I think I can understand and follow now, after your explanation. I cannot say the same when reading the charter text. I'll let others speak up. If I'm the only one having difficulty parsing that part of the charter, then so be it.
Btw, I'm not aware of any decision that the baseline protocol will be PMIP. CMIP is equally on the table. Alper On Jun 12, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Jouni wrote: > Alper, > > The latter bullet (forwarding path etc) is imho clearly in your 3. choice > below. It can also be 2. since it is not yet stated what is the baseline > protocol. The protocol solution will then determine that. The former bullet > (enhanced anchoring etc) is imho clearly your 2. more than 1. It could be > also partly in 3. if non-PMIP stuff is needed for the overall solution. > Anyway, the baseline protocol is known - PMIP, and the solution aims to > "distribution" within PMIP's boundaries. > > What is unclear here? > > Jouni > > > -- > Jouni Korhonen > Broadcom > > (Sent from my mobile..) > >> Alper Yegin <[email protected]> kirjoitti 12.6.2014 kello 9.09: >> >> Jouni, >> >> Based on earlier discussions, and what you wrote below, there are 3 distinct >> things: >> >> 1. *MIP maintenance. >> >> Any bug fix or improvement not driven by DMM, but for the sake of >> maintaining the *MIP baseline protocols, are handled here. >> >> 2. MIP-based DMM solutions. >> >> 3. Non-MIP-based DMM solutions. >> >> I presume these 3 items map to the those two bullets in the charter. Right? >> I cannot clearly tell the mapping though. >> >> Alper >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 12, 2014, at 12:14 AM, Jouni wrote: >>> >>> Alper, >>> >>>> On Jun 11, 2014, at 10:54 PM, Alper Yegin wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Jouni, >>>> >>>> >>>>>> o Enhanced mobility anchoring: define protocol solutions for a gateway >>>>>> and >>>>>> mobility anchor assignment and mid-session mobility anchor switching >>>>>> that go beyond what has been, for example, described in RFC 6097, >>>>>> 6463, >>>>>> and 5142. The solution should also define a mechanism for preserving >>>>>> ongoing mobility sessions in a single administrative or IGP routing >>>>>> domain, which would involve directing traffic towards the new anchor. >>>>>> >>>>>> o Forwarding path and signalling management: the mobility agent that >>>>>> handles >>>>>> the mobility signalling interacts with the network elements in the >>>>>> DMM network >>>>>> for managing the forwarding state associated with a mobile node's IP >>>>>> traffic. >>>>>> These two functions may or may not be collocated. Furthermore, the >>>>>> forwarding >>>>>> state may also be distributed into multiple network elements instead >>>>>> of a >>>>>> single anchor like network element. Define required protocol >>>>>> extensions to >>>>>> allow described forwarding path and signalling management. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> These above two seem inseparable. >>>>>> I recommend we list them as one item. >>>>> >>>>> Hrmph.. not sure I agree. >>>>> >>>>>> (The separation was between "anchor selection" and "data-path management >>>>>> signaling" before. At that time, it was a clearer separation. But even >>>>>> at that time I was suggesting combining the two items. In this latest >>>>>> text, the separation got blurred. The title of the first item, along >>>>>> with references to "switching", "preserving sessions", "directing >>>>>> traffic" all point to the context of the second one…) >>>>> >>>>> I see your point/concern. Since I (personally) see the enhanced mobility >>>>> anchoring more towards maintenance work, I am tempted to have these two >>>>> different milestones from the beginning. We could remove the last >>>>> sentence of the anchoring milestone.. >>>> >>>> So, what's called "enhanced mobility anchoring" refers to 'maintenance >>>> work', and >>> >>> It could, since we specifically point three PMIP RFCs on a related topic: >>> daa daa on anchor selection, solution for redirect during session >>> establishment and solution for anchor switch that does not address what >>> happens to ongoing sessions. When you do better than those, you are >>> approaching a solution that allows one to better distribute anchors. Still >>> very PMIPish, though. >>> >>>> "Forwarding path and signaling management" refers to 'new DMM solution'? >>> >>> Yes.. we specifically do not refer how and based on what to achieve that. >>> >>>> >>>> I didn't get that from the text… >>> >>> So is the "Forwarding path and signaling management" intent unclear in DMM >>> scope? >>> >>>> In my understanding, what we have been calling "maintenance" is simply >>>> PMIP/CMIP improvements/fixes in broad context -- not related to a DMM >>>> solution. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, that first bullet above does read like a DMM solution >>>> to me. >>>> >>>> I'm confused… what is maintenance, what is the objective of first bullet, >>>> what is the objective of second bullet… >>> >>> First bullet intent should be clear, continue PMIP where it left on this >>> anchor part. Second bullet gives you much more freedom. That is how I >>> divided it in my organic compute unit. >>> >>> - Jouni >>> >>>> >>>> Alper >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> - Jouni >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> We can note that separate anchor discovery & selection drafts may be >>>>>> produced (opening the door for split documents, while not forcing people >>>>>> to split any solution into two parts because the charter said so..) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alper >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 11, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A heavily updated charter text in the github. I am not sure it >>>>>>> addresses all wording concerns folks had. But.. flame on ;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reading the telco notes I realize I do not have nor have seen the >>>>>>> slides shown during the call, so probably the "re-anchoring" >>>>>>> sanitization in the charter text went too far compared what was >>>>>>> discussed in the call. Please check. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you have concerns on the milestones and specifically their timeline, >>>>>>> express your opinion with a new month+year combination. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The cooperation with other WGs is heavily reworded. Basically it says >>>>>>> now that DMM can mock other protocols but those then need review & >>>>>>> ratification from the protocol "owning" WG, just like commonly done >>>>>>> with DHCP & RADIUS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Routing based solutions are now explicitly stated to be restricted to >>>>>>> IGP routing domain and must not propagate routing updates outside the >>>>>>> IGP routing domain. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding the "enhanced mobility anchoring" milestone that could also >>>>>>> be put under maintenance: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Work items related to the PMIPv6 maintenance include: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> o Enhanced mobility anchoring: define protocol solutions for a >>>>>>> gateway and mobility anchor assignment and mid-session mobility >>>>>>> anchor switching that go beyond what has been, for example, >>>>>>> described in RFC 6097, 6463, and 5142. The solution should also >>>>>>> define a mechanism for preserving ongoing mobility sessions in a >>>>>>> single administrative or IGP routing domain, which would involve >>>>>>> directing traffic towards the new anchor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Opinions? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6/6/2014 5:37 PM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti: >>>>>>>> Hello Jouni, DMM folks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We better clarify what "anchor re-selection" stands for. >>>>>>>> If it is about selecting different anchors for different IP flows, >>>>>>>> that's one thing. >>>>>>>> If it is about changing the IP anchor in the middle of an IP flow, >>>>>>>> that's another thing. And that other thing needs to be scoped out. A >>>>>>>> basic understanding of a use case would be appreciated (just an >>>>>>>> explanation for discussion, I'm not asking for another I-D!), and >>>>>>>> identification of various aspects of that scenario which translate to >>>>>>>> work items for DMM WG. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I won't be in the call today. So, consider this for a discussion. >>>>>>>> Follow up on the mailing list afterwards would be good. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alper >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Minor changes.. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IMHO..the charter as it is today, would allow pretty much any >>>>>>>>> solution from legacy anchoring to herd of pigeons carrying IP.. ;-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have put in editorial changes of my own and clear text proposals >>>>>>>>> received from others. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> dmm mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
