[DMM] 回复: interim call #1 and rechater text

2014-09-05 Thread Max
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..

2014-09-05 Thread Alper Yegin
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..

2014-09-05 Thread Alper Yegin
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

2014-09-05 Thread Jouni

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..

2014-09-05 Thread Alper Yegin
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..

2014-09-05 Thread Charlie Perkins


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

2014-09-05 Thread Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)


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

2014-09-05 Thread Jouni

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