Thanks to Lyle Bertz for capturing this notes.
On 7/20/17, 12:22 AM, "Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]" <[email protected]> wrote: >Copied over from Etherpad for your reference. > >** DMM Working Group Agenda ** > > >Date: Wed, July 19th, 2017 >Time: 9:30 AM to 12:00 PM, CEST >Location: IETF99 - Prague, Czech Republic >Meeting Chairs: Dapeng Liu (Alibaba) & Sri Gundavelli (Cisco) > > >9:30 AM: >Title: Administrivia & Intro, WG organization & milestones >Time: 15 minutes >Description: Agenda, Note-taker negotiation and WG Progress Update >Presenters: Chairs > > >9:45 AM: >Title: Protocol for Forwarding Policy Configuration (FPC) in DMM >Time: 25 minutes >Presenter: Lyle Bertz >Description: Document Status and Changes >Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-07 > >- have been working weekly since Chicago >- focus on topology and policy >- implementation from Verizon (demo'd at MWC) >- ONOS and OpenDayLight. >- this is an information model (abstract) >- enhanced type model - DPN type >- topology is only for DPN selection >Suresh (AD): how soon before deadline? >Lyle: Aiming for end of Sept. >Sri: when are reviewers assigned? >Suresh: when you tell me its ready from YANG perspective. These specs are >obscure for those outside the area. Let's avoid last-minute surprise. >Lyle: understaood. >Dapeng: volunteers within this WG? (no one volunteered) >Suresh: without review, this document doesn't leave WG. Wants to see >non-author read. >Lyle: invite anyone to pop into the weekly calls. >SSuresh: we need people within the group to review. Wants to see more >discussion on list. >Lyle: we have write-up internally, will see if impact on mobility. >Determines how much before > > > > >10:10 AM: >Title: MN Identifier Types for RFC 4283 MN Id Option >Time: 15 minutes >Presenter: Charlie Perkins (and Suresh Krishnan on IESG feedback) >Description: IESG DISCUSS Status >Draft: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04.txt >- Lots of discussion around types and issues on mailing lists wrt the >draft >- Security issue > - Believe we have possible resolutions for issues that were raised > - Presented many parts of the mailing list discussion in the >presentation > - RFID Types explained further > - Noted adding more types for LPWAN >- Reviewed commentary from mailing list > - Privacy concerns > - MNIDs by their nature are privacy issues > - recommend encrypting all MNIDs > - Why so many MNIDs? > - people ask for them > - this proposal is a registry > - MUST encrypt (proper security measures) can help with the > - Low energy on mailing list on what is needed > - push registry to drive the expert review > - ensure IANA considerations in the registry are strong > - confirmed - only really for newer MNID types > - plan is to change IANA policy, get approval, designate the >experts and move on >- Next steps > - straw proposal > - keep id types and make further considerations and re-submit for >last call >- No hard delivery date for the next steps > > >10:25 AM: >Title: Distributed Mobility Anchoring >Time: 15 minutes >Presenter: H Anthony Chan >Description: Update on the changes related to last call comments >Draft: >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring- >06 >- 4 reviews resulting in 3 version updates; 1 review pending >- Reviewed each change > - In 06 > - deleted slicing from the document > - deleted security management > - Removed description of the forwarding table >- Noted the draft does not propose a solution but describes the mobility >anchor and parameters used in communication/signaling >- Described in detail the many different examples by which DMA can be >achieved >- Clarified scope of document and organized it so that you don¹t have to >read everything >- Chair wants to ensure that all 4 prior reviewers approve the changes in >the latest spec version > > >10:40 AM: >Title: On Demand Mobility Management Socket Extensions >Time: 15 minutes >Presenter: Danny Moses >Description: Update on changes to the draft since IETF 98 >Draft: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-11.txt >- reviewed l(blocking issue) >- noted request from chairs to address socket blocking (setsockopt) >raised in IETF 98 by Erik Kline > - 3 alternatives proposed and put on list > - Noted that there was no mailing list response > - Dave Dolson made a comment (off list) but did not select one of the >3 options nor discussed it on the mailing list > - Selected 2nd alternative > - Chair asked if issue originator was satisfied by the solution? > - What is the guarantee of the SetSc return? session has been >successfully allocated and assigned to the client > - v6 Only noted several times > - Requests for accepting 2nd alternative > - As long as the function is documented that it blocks > - For POSIX, a non-blocking version or call back version is >async probably should be provided > - AD - Do we need another abstract function? > - EK - depends on OS > - In general, bind is hard to use cause the AF must be known > - More than 1 V6 address in the return? no > - SetSc uses return address > - Another approach raised - set preferences then do something >else > - Michael - the text is not clear that the APIs are abstract; >needs to make clearer > - does not mind but concerned by issues raised in other IETF >99 meetings > - Suresh - although we don¹t do language bindings; goal is to >stay abstract > - Lyle - Suggested to change any reference of Œcode¹ to >pseudo code to make it more apparent it is not a language binding. This >seems to address the concern > - Suresh - this work and privacy access are orthogonal; not sure >how the flags are considered or merging (RFC 5014 and this work) > - Need to check between specs and make some new considerations >- Support of future on demand types > - add new continuity type similar to 3GPP SSC mode 3 > - time limited session continuity > - valid and preferred lifetime > - Suresh - already signaled in the framework > - What is the graceful replacement use case (will ask on mailing list) > >10:55 AM: >Title: DMM Deployment Models and Architectural Considerations >Time: 5 minutes >Presenter: Seil Jeon >Description: Update on the draft status >Draft: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models-01.txt >- quick update >- Chair suggest to authors to fined reviewers (offline) for the document > > >11:00 AM: >Title: SRv6 for Mobile User-PlaneTime: 15 minutes >Presenter: Satoru Matsushima >Description: Applicability of SRv6 (Segment Routing IPv6) to user-plane >of mobile networks >Draft: >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane >-00 >- Context; a new proposal >- Showed current example of mobile network and tunneling solution >- Showed SRv6 impact >- Gave Srv6 in a nutshell review >- Showed examples of how this solution supports >- related to FPC yang as a possible way to implement the solution >Questions >- Xingpeng- Does this work use the prefix types for on demand mobility? > - Don¹t think this is binding to the MN address assignment. >- Marco - May add more items to the paths that are not representative of >roles > - How is QoS handled? It is mentioned in the draft >- Dapeng - Why this vs. any other solution? Gets rid of tunnels >- Sri - Very good work item but not in the charter. Keep progressing and >will discuss with AD. >- Author hopes to update > > >11:15AM: >Title: Network-based and Client-based DMM solutions using Mobile IP >mechanisms >Time: 15 minutes >Presenter: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano >Description: Use of MIP protocol in DMM architecture >Draft (s): >https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bernardos-dmm-cmip-07.txt >https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bernardos-dmm-pmip-08.txt >https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring-09.txt >- reviewed the various documents >- noted prior demos @ IETF >- noted open source code availablity >- ask WG if this work should continiue and will follow this up on the >maling list > > >11:30 AM: >Title: Anchor-less Mobility Management >Time: 10 minutes >Presenter: Xinpeng(Jackie) Wei >Description: >Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wei-dmm-anchorless-mm-01.txt >- reviewed proposal >- described MEC use case (smart relocation) and changes for DMM >- has the author looked at LISP? Yes > >11:40AM: >Title: Router Advertisement Prefix Option Extension for On-Demand Mobility >Time: 10 minutes >Presenter: Wu-chiX Feng >Description: Extensions to ND for indicating Mobility Service Type >Draft: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-feng-dmm-ra-prefixtype-00.txt >- reviewed >- suggested it was brought to 6man (was done) >- no conflict with X bit but there is another proposal to burn anohter >bit which eats 2 of the 3 R-bits >- Suresh noted an extension mechanims for the exhaust or control through >a registry >- Alex - Who makes the demand? > > - Authors: We don't want to change the semantics of RS with this >proposal. Network will provide alternatives for the 'who'? > >- If there is an argument to modify RS we could try but authors were >discouraged. >- PBD option may be good for this. - This should be discussed in 6MAN Working group, suggested by Suresh and others. > >11:50 AM: >Title: FORCES for FPC >Time: 5 minutes >Presenter: Jamal Salim >Description: Proposal for using FORCES on FPC as a south bound protocol >Draft: TBD >- Lyle - As an author we are interested in finishing the information model >- as an implementor interested in the protocol > > > >11:55 AM: Adjourn >________________________________________ _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
