Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github..
Hi Jouni, Hi all, Sorry for not being able to attend the telco. I have checked the updated charter. It looks good, but I have some comments: Comment_1: Not sure which of the mentioned milestones incorporate traffic steering after re-anchoring. Is it the milestone "Forwarding path and signalling management" or is it the milestone "Enhanced mobility anchoring"? A sentence similar to below, could be included in one of these two work items to emphasize this: "The steering of the traffic associated with the "mid-session mobility anchor switching" is also in the scope of this work item." Comment_2: virtualization should be, IMHO, better emphasized in the charter. For example, could we change the following paragraph from: "The DMM solutions should not distinguish between physical or virtualised networking functions. However, whenever applicable, clarifications for specific networking function deployment models are in scope and encouraged." INTO: "The DMM solutions should not distinguish between physical or virtualised networking functions. However, whenever applicable, clarifications and additional features/capabilities for specific networking function deployment models, e.g., in virtualized environments, are in scope and encouraged. " Comment_3: The milestones are too ambitious. Please extend each of them with at least 3 months. Best regards, Georgios Van: dmm [dmm-boun...@ietf.org] namens Jouni Korhonen [jouni.nos...@gmail.com] Verzonden: vrijdag 13 juni 2014 13:41 Aan: dmm@ietf.org Onderwerp: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. Folks, New update (v9) available. I added most of the editorials from Charlie (thanks) and the red texts from Alper. The lot debated anchoring term (and milestone) is still there. The milestone does not mention anymore about preserving the mobility sessions and stuff. That would be up to the solution to define. - Jouni 6/6/2014 2:47 PM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: > 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
Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github..
Hi Jouni and all, With regard to the milestone, it looks getting more aggressive. If we think of the current pace of creating the problem statement and requirements documents, submitting the I-Ds to IESG by next March doesn't seem to be very realistic... Just a few other comments below: (2014/06/14 8:53), Jouni wrote: > On Jun 14, 2014, at 2:37 AM, Charles E. Perkins wrote: > >> Hello Jouni, >> >> Thanks for incorporating some of my suggested revisions. >> >> Follow-up below... >> >> On 6/13/2014 3:41 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: /* What about RFC 5568 (FMIP)? */ >>> There is the "..such as.." so I think there is no really need to lost all >>> possible MIP6 variations. >> FMIP is particularly important when developing solutions >> that are aimed at localizing handover signaling, and I think >> it deserves particular mention, at the cost of adding ten or >> fifteen more characters to the charter text. > Okay. Then Why not RFC5949 for PMIP? ;-) /* What does "eventually" mean?? */ >>> erm.. removed.. >> Well, it's still there. So, maybe, the other dozen or so > D'oh. > >> revisions that didn't make it into charter revision #9 were >> intended to be included also...? I'll await further follow-up >> until I can see whether my other comments were rejected >> or simply overlooked. Please take a look. > Hmm.. seems i did not include the comments > in the milestones part.. my mistake. > >> In particular, misuse of the definite article "the" can be >> interpreted to restrict development to a single solution. >> And, as has been discussed, I think that the dmm WG is >> very likely to develop a suite of smoothly interacting >> solutions. Moreover, it should be observed that on a >> single mobile node, different applications might require >> different treatment for their end-point IP address. This >> might also encourage further use of multiple IPv6 addresses >> by a single mobile node, which in my opinion is a positive >> feature. Or it could elevate the importance of proper >> treatment for flow mobility. >> >> >> Is it just me, or do other people prefer "RFC 6275" to >> "RFC6275"? > Spaces are cheap.. will add those. Many RFCs don't have a space between them, but it should be ok. Regards, -- Hidetoshi > - Jouni > Also, the suggested dates for chartered work items seem quite unrealistic to me. >>> ;-) +3 months? >> That would at least enable some believability. >> >>> I noticed that part of the charter fit nicely in my 80-column (vi) text window, and part of the charter does not fit nicely. I could also fix that if desired. >>> Fixed. >> Thanks! >> >> For convenience, I attached the rfcdiff output from my previous >> text of the charter compared to today's version #9. If doing so is >> not helpful, please let me know. >> >> Regards, >> Charlie P. >> >> >> > ___ > 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 Jouni and all, Thanks for updating the charter, which is much tidy now. Sorry for my late response, but I have a couple of comments below: o With regard to enhanced mobility anchoring (mid-session anchor switching), there were a lot of discussions in the past as you know and eventually that idea was not fully accepted by the community. It's ok to handle it in DMM WG, but we also need convincing use cases and effectiveness. Re-anchoring LMAs/HAs with preserving IP address may not be so elegant and efficient. o I was not very sure why virtualization needs to be mentioned. There might have been some discussion about it, but do we really need it in the charter? The DMM solutions should not distinguish between physical or virtualised networking functions. However, whenever applicable, clarifications for specific networking function deployment models are in scope and encouraged. o The fourth paragraph mentions UP/CP separation, but the last sentence is about IP address change, which is described in the fifth paragraph. That sentence may be fit there. In contrast to existing IETF standard IP mobility protocols, mobility management signalling paths and end user traffic forwarding paths may differ; those mobility related functions may be located in separate network nodes. "Solutions may also specify the selection between the care-of addresses and home address(es)/prefix(es) for different application use cases". Regards, -- Hidetoshi Yokota KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc. e-mail:yok...@kddilabs.jp (2014/06/13 20:41), Jouni Korhonen wrote: > Folks, > > New update (v9) available. I added most of the editorials from Charlie > (thanks) and the red texts from Alper. > > The lot debated anchoring term (and milestone) is still there. The > milestone does not mention anymore about preserving the mobility > sessions and stuff. That would be up to the solution to define. > > - Jouni > > > > > 6/6/2014 2:47 PM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: >> 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
Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github..
On Jun 14, 2014, at 2:37 AM, Charles E. Perkins wrote: > > Hello Jouni, > > Thanks for incorporating some of my suggested revisions. > > Follow-up below... > > On 6/13/2014 3:41 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>> /* What about RFC 5568 (FMIP)? */ >> >> There is the "..such as.." so I think there is no really need to lost all >> possible MIP6 variations. > > FMIP is particularly important when developing solutions > that are aimed at localizing handover signaling, and I think > it deserves particular mention, at the cost of adding ten or > fifteen more characters to the charter text. Okay. >> >>> /* What does "eventually" mean?? */ >> >> erm.. removed.. > > Well, it's still there. So, maybe, the other dozen or so D'oh. > revisions that didn't make it into charter revision #9 were > intended to be included also...? I'll await further follow-up > until I can see whether my other comments were rejected > or simply overlooked. Please take a look. Hmm.. seems i did not include the comments in the milestones part.. my mistake. > In particular, misuse of the definite article "the" can be > interpreted to restrict development to a single solution. > And, as has been discussed, I think that the dmm WG is > very likely to develop a suite of smoothly interacting > solutions. Moreover, it should be observed that on a > single mobile node, different applications might require > different treatment for their end-point IP address. This > might also encourage further use of multiple IPv6 addresses > by a single mobile node, which in my opinion is a positive > feature. Or it could elevate the importance of proper > treatment for flow mobility. > > > Is it just me, or do other people prefer "RFC 6275" to > "RFC6275"? Spaces are cheap.. will add those. - Jouni > >> >>> >>> Also, the suggested dates for chartered work items seem >>> quite unrealistic to me. >> >> ;-) +3 months? > > That would at least enable some believability. > >> >> >>> I noticed that part of the charter fit nicely in my 80-column >>> (vi) text window, and part of the charter does not fit nicely. >>> I could also fix that if desired. >> >> Fixed. > > Thanks! > > For convenience, I attached the rfcdiff output from my previous > text of the charter compared to today's version #9. If doing so is > not helpful, please let me know. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github..
Folks, New update (v9) available. I added most of the editorials from Charlie (thanks) and the red texts from Alper. The lot debated anchoring term (and milestone) is still there. The milestone does not mention anymore about preserving the mobility sessions and stuff. That would be up to the solution to define. - Jouni 6/6/2014 2:47 PM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: 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
Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github..
Charlie, Thanks Charlie for all the editorials. I have incoporated most. Additional comments inline. 6/12/2014 12:24 AM, Charles E. Perkins kirjoitti: Hello folks, I reviewed the charter, and found numerous little stylistic improvements. Most of my revisions were along the lines of rewording the same thought to eliminate ambiguity or make grammatical corrections. I've attached a diff file to show all of the suggested revisions. I hope this is a reasonable format my suggestions. Even though such things are minor, getting them right is very helpful for accurately expressing the ideas. Here are some most substantial comments, which are also embedded in my revised file: /* What about RFC 5568 (FMIP)? */ There is the "..such as.." so I think there is no really need to lost all possible MIP6 variations. "Routing based proposals must not propagate routing updates outside the IGP routing domain." /* Does this disallow Binding Update? */ Should not.. if you refer to MIP style tunnel management binding updates. /* What does "eventually" mean?? */ erm.. removed.. Also, the suggested dates for chartered work items seem quite unrealistic to me. ;-) +3 months? I noticed that part of the charter fit nicely in my 80-column (vi) text window, and part of the charter does not fit nicely. I could also fix that if desired. Fixed. - Jouni Regards, Charlie P. ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] Next-Generation Mobility Protocols and Architectures, Call #5
Doodle poll is closed. Majority has preferred Wednesday, July 2, 4pm Central European Time. Please mark your calendars. Webex call details will come later… Cheers, Alper On Jun 10, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Alper Yegin wrote: > > Hello Folks, > > Pierrick will be giving a talk on Next-Generation POP in the context of > mobility management. > > Please register your availability on the following doodle before the end of > Thursday. > > http://doodle.com/v584xke9qpzdnyfa > > Cheers, > > Alper > > ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
