Folks, Based of the "feedback" can I assume folks are mostly happy with the current text?
- Jouni On Dec 14, 2011, at 10:54 AM, jouni korhonen wrote: > Folks, > > We have been working on a charter text from DMM based on the initial goal > setting and the input we received during the Taipei meeting. Note that this > is the first draft and now we are soliciting for input. > > - Jouni & Julien > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) > ------------------------------------- > > Charter > > Current Status: Active > > Chairs: > Julien Laganier <julien.i...@gmail.com> > Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nos...@gmail.com> > > Internet Area Directors: > Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> > Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net> > > Internet Area Advisor: > Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net> > > Mailing Lists: > General Discussion: mext@ietf.org > To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext > > Description of Working Group: > > The Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group specifies IP > mobility, access network and routing solutions, which allow for > setting up IP networks so that traffic is distributed in an > optimal way and does not rely on centrally deployed anchors to manage > IP mobility sessions. The distributed mobility management solutions > aim for transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of > active transport level sessions as mobile hosts or entire mobile > networks change their point of attachment to the Internet. > > The protocol solutions should be enhancements to existing IP mobility > protocols, either host- or network-based, such as Mobile IPv6 > [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213, 5844] and > NEMO [RFC3963]. Alternatively, the distributed mobility management > solution can be transparent to any underlying IP mobility protocol. > Although the maintenance of stable home address(es) and/or prefix(es) > and upper level sessions is a desirable goal when mobile hosts/routers > change their point of attachment to the Internet, it is not a strict > requirement. Mobile hosts/routers should not assume that IP > addressing including home address(es) and/or home network prefix(es) > remain the same throughout the entire upper level session lifetime. > > The distributed mobility management solutions primarily target IPv6 > Deployment and should not be tailored specifically to support IPv4, > in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs > are used. At least IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile > host/router and the access networks. Independent of the distributed > mobility management solution, backward compatibility must be > maintained. If the network or the mobile host/router do not support > the distributed mobility management enabling protocol, nothing should > break. > > Work items related to the distributed mobility management include: > > o Solution Requirements: Define precisely the problem of distributed > mobility management and identity the requirements for a distributed > mobility management solution. > > o Best practices and Gap Analysis: Document best practices for the > deployment of existing mobility protocols in a distributed mobility > management environment and identify the limitations of each such > approach with respect to fulfillment of the solution requirements. > > o If limitations are identified as part of the above deliverable, > specify extensions to existing protocols that removes these > limitations within a distributed mobility management environment. > > Goals and Milestones: > > Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' as a working > group document. To be Informational RFC. > Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' as a working > group document. To be Informational RFC. > Nov 2012 - Evaluate the need for additional working group document(s) > for extensions to fill the identified gaps. > Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' to the IESG for > consideration as an Informational RFC. > Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' to the IESG for > consideration as an Informational RFC. > Mar 2013 - Conclude the working group or re-charter. > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
