[DMM] 回复： interim call #1 and rechater text
Folks, The meeting minutes is uploaded: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/09/02/dmm/minutes/minutes-interim-2014-dmm-1 -- Dapeng Liu 在 2014年9月3日 星期三，5:50，Jouni Korhonen 写道： Folks, Check the charter text we came up with during the interim call #1. The diffs are here: https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/commit/4475c1c7aeac024171f6b669d330cfae98bdc283 And the clean text is here: https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt Have a look at the text. If you agree with the content we'll start moving this forward. The minutes and stuff from the interim call will follow shortly. - Jouni Dapeng ___ 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] regarding the re-chartering..
Alex, DMM is not meant to be only about a bunch of MIP-based solutions. There are various components in DMM solution space that'd also work with GTP-based architectures. For example, identifying the mobility needs of flows. Or, conveying the mobility characteristic of a prefix to the UE. Alper On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 03/09/2014 20:53, Brian Haberman a écrit : Behcet, On 9/3/14 2:33 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: You don't seem to understand my points. That is quite possible. Your comment on the list was I am against any deployment work before we decide on a solution... I read that as an objection to having the deployment models work item on the agenda. Please do tell me what I am missing. Regards, Brian Hi, I am following the discussion and me too I do not quite understand what is the complain. I am happy to learn that a if a WG is to be formed then it would be around a solution rather than just requirements or architecture. That said, I would like to express a worry along similar lines. In DMM, precedents and the keen NETEXT, there seems to be a hard-rooted disconnect between the product developped - (P)Mobile IP - and the deployments. We know for a fact that 3GPP deployments (2G/3G/4G) do not use (P)Mobile IP. We also know that 3GPP specs do mention Mobile IP. To such a point that I wonder whether 3GPP has not the same disconnect as here. On another hand, we do have indications of where (P)Mobile IP is used - the trials, the projects, the kernel code, and not least the slideware attracting real customers. The worry: develop DMM protocol while continuing the disconnect. Alex ___ 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] regarding the re-chartering..
From meeting minutes: (Jouni) I suggest that we left the bullet as a work item and we do not have explicit milestone for it. we can add this milestone when we actually see that there is something meaningful forming for that document. The decision at the meeting was to leave the work item in the charter, but not to associate a specific milestone with it until the WG sees what goes into that document. It was not fully clear what would be in that document, and it's a concern that the rest of the WG documents would be gated by such a document. Jouni's above suggestion is a good way forward IMO. Alper On Sep 3, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Brian Haberman wrote: Behcet, On 9/3/14 2:33 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: You don't seem to understand my points. That is quite possible. Your comment on the list was I am against any deployment work before we decide on a solution... I read that as an objection to having the deployment models work item on the agenda. Please do tell me what I am missing. Regards, Brian ___ 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] 回复： interim call #1 and rechater text
Folks, This mail start a one week period to comment and propose changes to the re-charter text. The call ends 12th Sep. All the material from the Interim call#1 including the latest re-charter text is available at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/09/02/dmm/proceedings.html If you have comments / corrections to propose, include the concrete change proposal with a justification, for example in a form: OLD: Feb 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' as a working group document. To be Proposed Standard. NEW: May 2019 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' as a working group document. To be Proposed Standard. WHY: I need to concentrate bettering my golf handicap for the next three years, thus I have no time to contribute until early 2019. And of course the rest of the WG needs to agree (even for the simplest change I hope people acking it with 'ok' or alike oneliner). - Jouni Dapeng On Sep 5, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Max wrote: Folks, The meeting minutes is uploaded: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/09/02/dmm/minutes/minutes-interim-2014-dmm-1 -- Dapeng Liu 在 2014年9月3日 星期三，5:50，Jouni Korhonen 写道： Folks, Check the charter text we came up with during the interim call #1. The diffs are here: https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/commit/4475c1c7aeac024171f6b669d330cfae98bdc283 And the clean text is here: https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt Have a look at the text. If you agree with the content we'll start moving this forward. The minutes and stuff from the interim call will follow shortly. - Jouni Dapeng ___ 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] regarding the re-chartering..
Hi Alex, On Sep 5, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 05/09/2014 10:48, Alper Yegin a écrit : Alex, DMM is not meant to be only about a bunch of MIP-based solutions. There are various components in DMM solution space that'd also work with GTP-based architectures. For example, identifying the mobility needs of flows. Or, conveying the mobility characteristic of a prefix to the UE. Alper - thanks for the reply. Identifying the mobility needs of flows assumes that IP flows _can_ be characterized, and then distinguished as mobile - or non-mobile. I think this is very hard to do, given the difficulty to write good firewall rules, and the difficulty of analyzing traffic dumps. For example, Netalyzr was written to tell whether or not one's computer is connected to the Internet. That report page has so many lines that it is hard to tell which part of it really means 'connected to the Internet'. The same problem may arise when trying to identify a particular 'flow'. The most robust way is to let the application tell the IP stack. http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-02.txt Alper Alex Alper On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 03/09/2014 20:53, Brian Haberman a écrit : Behcet, On 9/3/14 2:33 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: You don't seem to understand my points. That is quite possible. Your comment on the list was I am against any deployment work before we decide on a solution... I read that as an objection to having the deployment models work item on the agenda. Please do tell me what I am missing. Regards, Brian Hi, I am following the discussion and me too I do not quite understand what is the complain. I am happy to learn that a if a WG is to be formed then it would be around a solution rather than just requirements or architecture. That said, I would like to express a worry along similar lines. In DMM, precedents and the keen NETEXT, there seems to be a hard-rooted disconnect between the product developped - (P)Mobile IP - and the deployments. We know for a fact that 3GPP deployments (2G/3G/4G) do not use (P)Mobile IP. We also know that 3GPP specs do mention Mobile IP. To such a point that I wonder whether 3GPP has not the same disconnect as here. On another hand, we do have indications of where (P)Mobile IP is used - the trials, the projects, the kernel code, and not least the slideware attracting real customers. The worry: develop DMM protocol while continuing the disconnect. Alex ___ 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] regarding the re-chartering..
Hello folks, I have made various presentations at IETF, some from many years ago, proposing that Mobile IP enable use of GTP as a tunneling option. I still think that would be a good idea. Should I re-re-revive a draft stating this in more detail? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/5/2014 1:48 AM, Alper Yegin wrote: Alex, DMM is not meant to be only about a bunch of MIP-based solutions. There are various components in DMM solution space that'd also work with GTP-based architectures. For example, identifying the mobility needs of flows. Or, conveying the mobility characteristic of a prefix to the UE. Alper On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 03/09/2014 20:53, Brian Haberman a écrit : Behcet, On 9/3/14 2:33 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: You don't seem to understand my points. That is quite possible. Your comment on the list was I am against any deployment work before we decide on a solution... I read that as an objection to having the deployment models work item on the agenda. Please do tell me what I am missing. Regards, Brian Hi, I am following the discussion and me too I do not quite understand what is the complain. I am happy to learn that a if a WG is to be formed then it would be around a solution rather than just requirements or architecture. That said, I would like to express a worry along similar lines. In DMM, precedents and the keen NETEXT, there seems to be a hard-rooted disconnect between the product developped - (P)Mobile IP - and the deployments. We know for a fact that 3GPP deployments (2G/3G/4G) do not use (P)Mobile IP. We also know that 3GPP specs do mention Mobile IP. To such a point that I wonder whether 3GPP has not the same disconnect as here. On another hand, we do have indications of where (P)Mobile IP is used - the trials, the projects, the kernel code, and not least the slideware attracting real customers. The worry: develop DMM protocol while continuing the disconnect. Alex ___ 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 ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] 回复： interim call #1 and rechater text
On 9/5/14 3:11 AM, Jouni jouni.nos...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, This mail start a one week period to comment and propose changes to the re-charter text. The call ends 12th Sep. All the material from the Interim call#1 including the latest re-charter text is available at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/09/02/dmm/proceedings.html If you have comments / corrections to propose, include the concrete change proposal with a justification, for example in a form: OLD: Feb 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' as a working group document. To be Proposed Standard. NEW: May 2019 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' as a working group document. To be Proposed Standard. WHY: I need to concentrate bettering my golf handicap for the next three years, thus I have no time to contribute until early 2019. Seriously ? That will make you a professional golfer and will leave the working group below the hole. Also, by then one of our favorite SDO would have published zillion pages of legally agreed/negotiated text. So, lets keep this 2015. Regards Sri ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] 回复： interim call #1 and rechater text
On Sep 5, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: On 9/5/14 3:11 AM, Jouni jouni.nos...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, This mail start a one week period to comment and propose changes to the re-charter text. The call ends 12th Sep. All the material from the Interim call#1 including the latest re-charter text is available at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/09/02/dmm/proceedings.html If you have comments / corrections to propose, include the concrete change proposal with a justification, for example in a form: OLD: Feb 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' as a working group document. To be Proposed Standard. NEW: May 2019 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' as a working group document. To be Proposed Standard. WHY: I need to concentrate bettering my golf handicap for the next three years, thus I have no time to contribute until early 2019. Seriously ? The format above is serious, the content is not ;-) - Jouni That will make you a professional golfer and will leave the working group below the hole. Also, by then one of our favorite SDO would have published zillion pages of legally agreed/negotiated text. So, lets keep this 2015. Regards Sri ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
