[DMM] Call for July Meeting Agenda Item
Hello All, The July meeting is approaching and It is time to prepare the agenda for the upcoming meeting. We have almost finished the working group work of the work items listed in the current charter. The requirement document is being reviewed by IESG and gap analysis document will soon finish WGLC. Hopefully we can resolve the left comments of those two working group documents by email before the July meeting. Then we can focus on the re-charter discussion and any other new proposals in the July meeting. So please send to chairs the the following information if you want to present something in the upcoming July meeting. Name of the presentation Link of the draft Time needed Thanks, -- Dapeng LiuJouni ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
[DMM] 回复： draft charter text updates in github..
在 2014年6月6日 星期五，22:37，Alper Yegin 写道： 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. OK. -Dapeng Liu 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 dmm@ietf.org (mailto:dmm@ietf.org) https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org (mailto:dmm@ietf.org) https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github..
Hi Alper, All: Towards the end of the charter, there is a paragraph that states: 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, or that support for mobility functions is provided on the network side in all conditions, unless these properties are specifically indicated to the mobile node and its applications from the network. I suppose this clarifies that the anchor re-selection can apply to a single session also? BR, John -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alper Yegin Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 9:38 AM To: Jouni Korhonen Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. 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 dmm@ietf.orgmailto:dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.orgmailto:dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github..
John, Correct. -- Jouni Korhonen Broadcom (Sent from my mobile..) John Kaippallimalil john.kaippallima...@huawei.com kirjoitti 6.6.2014 kello 17.56: Hi Alper, All: Towards the end of the charter, there is a paragraph that states: 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, or that support for mobility functions is provided on the network side in all conditions, unless these properties are specifically indicated to the mobile node and its applications from the network. I suppose this clarifies that the “anchor re-selection” can apply to a single session also? BR, John -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alper Yegin Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 9:38 AM To: Jouni Korhonen Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. 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 dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github..
As posted earlier in an email, I propose to keep the anchor (re)selection decoupled from mid-session or between-session aspects. I think we should have one solution for anchor selection, that can be used also to select a new one during runtime if needed. How to treat bindings in case of mid-session re-selection, is a different thing. It's about importing mobility states into the new selected anchor. Associated Traffic steering I see in a separate document, which is currently named 'forwarding path and signaling management'. marco -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni Sent: Freitag, 6. Juni 2014 17:06 To: Alper Yegin Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. Good point Alper. Lets hash that anchor reselection details out shortly. -- Jouni Korhonen Broadcom (Sent from my mobile..) Alper Yegin alper.ye...@yegin.org kirjoitti 6.6.2014 kello 17.37: 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 dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github..
Hi John, Hi Alper, Yes, that was the intention of having that text about “anchor re-selection” in the paragraph! Of course, the “anchor re-selection” should apply to an ongoing session! Best regards, Georgios PS. I am afraid that I cannot attend the telco! Van: dmm [dmm-boun...@ietf.org] namens John Kaippallimalil [john.kaippallima...@huawei.com] Verzonden: vrijdag 6 juni 2014 16:56 Aan: Alper Yegin; Jouni Korhonen CC: dmm@ietf.org Onderwerp: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. Hi Alper, All: Towards the end of the charter, there is a paragraph that states: 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, or that support for mobility functions is provided on the network side in all conditions, unless these properties are specifically indicated to the mobile node and its applications from the network. I suppose this clarifies that the “anchor re-selection” can apply to a single session also? BR, John -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alper Yegin Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 9:38 AM To: Jouni Korhonen Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. 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 dmm@ietf.orgmailto:dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.orgmailto:dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github..
Hi John, My reading of that sentence is different. To me it says We cannot assume that the solutions we are developing would be available on all networks across the Internet. While I'd agree with that statement, I don't know what it really means for our solution design. Some of our solutions may not be present in a network, hence the MN cannot use them. OK…. and?? In my reading, it does not say the following: Network cannot always provide IP session continuity, hence we need to define solutions that can deal with this. (e.g., using MPTCP, or restarting flows, or some other magic, etc.). I don't think the intent of that sentence is this. And therefore, I don't think that sentence is related to anchor re-selection. Alper On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:56 PM, John Kaippallimalil wrote: Hi Alper, All: Towards the end of the charter, there is a paragraph that states: 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, or that support for mobility functions is provided on the network side in all conditions, unless these properties are specifically indicated to the mobile node and its applications from the network. I suppose this clarifies that the “anchor re-selection” can apply to a single session also? BR, John -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alper Yegin Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 9:38 AM To: Jouni Korhonen Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. 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 dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github..
Hi Alper, I did not intrepret it that way. The paragraph seemed broad enough to include both (or all) cases. I found the charter to be broad enough - the current text would support a solution regardless of the specific scenario/design. But, if it the text is being interpreted in a specific way, I don't have any serious reservations against clarification. Best Regards, John From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.ye...@yegin.org] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 10:53 AM To: John Kaippallimalil Cc: Jouni Korhonen; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. Hi John, My reading of that sentence is different. To me it says We cannot assume that the solutions we are developing would be available on all networks across the Internet. While I'd agree with that statement, I don't know what it really means for our solution design. Some of our solutions may not be present in a network, hence the MN cannot use them. OK and?? In my reading, it does not say the following: Network cannot always provide IP session continuity, hence we need to define solutions that can deal with this. (e.g., using MPTCP, or restarting flows, or some other magic, etc.). I don't think the intent of that sentence is this. And therefore, I don't think that sentence is related to anchor re-selection. Alper On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:56 PM, John Kaippallimalil wrote: Hi Alper, All: Towards the end of the charter, there is a paragraph that states: 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, or that support for mobility functions is provided on the network side in all conditions, unless these properties are specifically indicated to the mobile node and its applications from the network. I suppose this clarifies that the anchor re-selection can apply to a single session also? BR, John -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alper Yegin Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 9:38 AM To: Jouni Korhonen Cc: dmm@ietf.orgmailto:dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. 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 dmm@ietf.orgmailto:dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.orgmailto:dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
