Subject: [netext] Draft NETEXT2 BOF agenda for comments

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:30:59 +0200

Hi,

We are proposing the following agenda for the meeting.
Comments are welcome.

-------------------------------------------------------
NETEXT2 BOF
Meeting agenda

TUESDAY, July 28, 2009
1300-1500 Afternoon Session I
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Blue sheets, scribe, agenda bashing
Chairs - 5 min

2. Problem scope
Jonne & Marcelo - 20 min

3. Overview of types of solutions
Julien & Suresh - 30 min

4. Requirements
Raj & Rajeev - 50 min

5. Next steps
ADs - 15 min
-------------------------------------------------------

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:29:25 +0200

Hi Marcelo,

I am wondering if we should analyse requirements prior to discussing
solution approaches. If we were to follow a structured approach we would
have the sequence of problem statement, requirements and then solutions.

-Raj

On 7/14/09 2:30 AM, "Marcelo Bagnulo" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:05:57 +0200

that would make sense, wouldn't it?

more seriously, i think the agenda is much less ambitious than that.

The idea of the presentation of the types of solutions is to provide an 
overview of the type of solutions that can be envisioned, so people 
understand what is on the table.

The goal of that presentation is by no mean select one of them or to 
figure out if one is better (in any sense) to another one. Just to have 
a full picture of what can be done. Initially, i had assigned 10 min for 
this. We have expanded it, in case soem disucssion raises (in 
particular, i can expect some people adding additional details to the 
different approaches presented).

Then we would move to the requirements. This will include the disucssion 
of what are the requirements and why these are reasonable. I am doubtful 
we will be able to move beyond that point.

Of course the next step would be to contrast the solutions with the 
requirements and pick one approach. I don't think we will get that 
far... am i too pessimistic?

This is the rationale behind the proposed agenda... sounds better?

Regards, marcelo

---

From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:22:45 -0400

Hi Marcelo,

Can we see the list of "types of solutions" on the mailing list much before the meeting? For example, I would like to know if this list contains the context transfer solution being standardized in the MIPSHOP WG between two MAGs. This enables a lot of extensions that under the scope of NETEXT2 BOF. And it would avoid the need for signaling from the MN is (L2 or L3) in many cases.

Vijay 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:06 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netext] Draft NETEXT2 BOF agenda for comments
>

---

From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:55:29 +0800

Hi Marcelo,

Adding on to what Vijay has highlighted, in the solution space discussion in Netext BOF2 
(1)Will there be discussions on
soultions that only use L2 modification, 
solutions that use L3 modification, 
solutions that use L2 and L3 modifications.

(2)Will there be reference to published IDs in this area(PMIP inter access technology handoff and PMIP multihoming)  when  solution space is presented.
I think already many IDs are there, so refernce to those IDs will be good.

Because currently, not very clear what is going to be discussed under the categories outlined.

BR,
Mohana

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Vijay Devarapalli
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 8:23 AM
> To: marcelo bagnulo braun; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Can we see the list of "types of solutions" on the mailing list much
> before the meeting? For example, I would like to know if this list
> contains the context transfer solution being standardized in the MIPSHOP
> WG between two MAGs. This enables a lot of extensions that under the scope
> of NETEXT2 BOF. And it would avoid the need for signaling from the MN is
> (L2 or L3) in many cases.
> 
> Vijay
>

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:34:09 +0200

> solutions that use L2 and L3 modifications.
correct

> I think already many IDs are there, so refernce to those IDs will be good.

maybe some references to draft can be incldued as examples, but this is 
up to presenters.

Regards, marcelo

>>>> solution approaches. If we were to follow a structured
>>>>         
>>> approach we would
>>>       
>>>> have the sequence of problem statement, requirements and
>>>>         
>>> then solutions.
>>>       
>>>> -Raj
>>>>
>>>>

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:19:30 +0900

Hi Marcelo, Mohana and all,

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> Mohana Jeyatharan escribio':
>> Hi Marcelo,
>>
>> Adding on to what Vijay has highlighted, in the solution space 
>> discussion in Netext BOF2 (1)Will there be discussions on
>> soultions that only use L2 modification, solutions that use L3 
>> modification, solutions that use L2 and L3 modifications.
>>   
> correct
> 
>> (2)Will there be reference to published IDs in this area(PMIP inter 
>> access technology handoff and PMIP multihoming)  when  solution space 
>> is presented.

Before going to the solutions references, there is a PS draft for the
inter access technology handoff... I'm not sure if this topic is
included in the agenda, but that should also be referred to and
hopefully captured as well to align our understanding and goal.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

>>>> [email-masked] escribio':
>>>>      
>>>>> Hi Marcelo,
>>>>>

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:33:25 +0200

Hi Vijay,

Not answering you question at this point, but just in order to describe 
a bit more in detail what is the goal of such presentation.

The idea of the solution overview presentation is to include every 
possible approach that can be used to provide the support of multiple 
interfaces (of potentially different technologies) to a network that is 
running PMIP. The only requirement at this point is that the final 
result must still use PMIP for the single interface case like it is 
currently supported. All possible approaches are then presented ( a very 
high level description of course). Nothing is ruled out of such 
presentation. this is just to give background of the possible ways to 
tackle the problem and to make the point that every possible approach is 
on the table for consideration at this point.  For this reason i was 
expecting this presentation not to generate much discussion (yes, 
right...) since it was expected to be all inclusive.

Of course, the different solutions have veru different properties and 
the meet a different set of requirements. So, the goal was to have a 
discussion about what requirements we consider need to be imposed to the 
solution. this is pretty much what will decide what way to go. And this 
is the next presentation, where the discussion seems more likely, i.e. 
the requirement presentation.

would that approach make sense to you?

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:28:52 +0900

Hi Marcelo and Vijay,

> Can we see the list of "types of solutions" on the mailing list much before the meeting? For example, I would like to know if this list contains the context transfer solution being standardized in…

That is a good point. If the network can help provide necessary
information, that will save some protocol extensions on the client side,
which would also fit the purpose of the network-based mobility
management. I think it is a good idea to distinguish the situations
where the context transfer type of mechanism is available or not.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi