Re: MOBIKE WG Agenda for IETF-64, take 1

Francis Dupont wrote:

>=> I don't believe it is very useful to discuss about the
>transport mode/Mobike I-D (according to comments about it in
>the list, BTW the I-D does not address issue #7).
>
>For SCTP it is clear there is something to do but not so clear what...
>BTW is the RFC 3554 supported? (if it is we should get the feedback
>from an implementor)
>
>For multi-homing in general I believe we should reconsider
>the issues #8 and #20. Of course the issue #63 could apply.
>(who should present this? IMHO we mainly need a discussion)
>  
>
The transport draft does not have too many details.
We do not have a written proposal on the table for
SCTP support nor issue #8 extension of MOBIKE*.

However, as we are progressing with the base protocol
we now have some possibilities to discuss future things.
I think we should use this opportunity now, and if you
think some of the above issues are important, I would
recommend reserving a slot to talk about it. It may
require some preparation from you, however, such
as figuring out what the SCTP implementation situation
is or what issues are in providing additional IPsec/MOBIKE
support for SCTP.

Obviously, drafts and details are going to be needed at
some point, but what we actually wanted to talk about in
the meeting, I think, is more about the requirements more
than the bits. What do we want to achieve? Who would use
that, and would it fall within our job or somewhere else?
Details would also be useful in order to get an
understanding of what functionality X would mean in
terms of the bits, but they are not an absolute requirement.

--Jari

*) I don't think #8 extension needs #20, and personally
I'd rather not see #20 changed.