Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting
marcelo bagnulo braun <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
El 22/03/11 16:37, Alexandru Petrescu escribió: > Le 22/03/2011 15:52, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit : >> so, you ave downgraded you statement of several itemS being non MIP >> related and all the DMM discussion being non MIP related to just one >> single agenda item... > > You asked one, I told one. > > Another is the 3rd item (HAC is not a Mobile IPv6 entity, TLS is not a > MIP6 Type Code, etc.) > you mean the presentation of the draft entitled "Negotiation of security protocol for Mobile IPv6 operation" which in its 7 pages mentions the term Mobile IP over 24 times????, really? >> great, it seems we are making good progress here. >> >> about the particular item you mention: i understand this is the >> motivation for the dmm work and understanding the perceived probelms >> is needed to figure out how we can use MIP to deal with the >> perceived problem. >> >> >> However, if people think this is out of scope for MEXT, i am fine to >> discuss whether we should keep it in the agenda or not > > I think it is worth discussing how much relationship do the current > agenda items have to the Mobile IPv6 protocol, and whether that > relationship is as much as other agenda requests. sure, that is what we are doing, but if your point is that draft-patil-mext-sec-negotiate-00.txt is as closely related to the MIPv6 protocol as IRON, then i am not sure we may be able to find a common ground for understanding each other.... Regards, marcelo > > Alex > >> >> >> >> >> >> El 22/03/11 15:35, Alexandru Petrescu escribió: >>> Le 22/03/2011 15:06, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit : >>>> Please point exactly what item in the agenda is NOT about the >>>> Mobile IP protocol. >>> >>> The 6th. >>> >>> Alex >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> El 20/03/11 15:13, Alexandru Petrescu escribió: >>>>> Marcelo, Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I have a doubt about the reasoning behind declining Fred's >>>>> request of agenda item. >>>>> >>>>> The current agenda >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt >>>>> >>>>> contains items IMHO only remotely or very vaguely related to >>>>> the Mobile IPv6 protocol per se. Additionally, agenda's DMM >>>>> core item has a discussion which does not seem to converge on >>>>> the use of Mobile IPv6. >>>>> >>>>> In this sense, I am not sure the typical statements of MEXT >>>>> doing _only_ Mobile IPv6 stuff holds any longer, as I see it >>>>> today. >>>>> >>>>> Fred's "IRON and MOBIKE" draft-templin-ironmike-00.txt is >>>>> related to IKE which is related to Mobile IPv6 security. >>>>> >>>>> I am not trying to advertise Fred's draft particularly. I am >>>>> saying this because... >>>>> >>>>> I have the same agenda problem with similar work I do >>>>> (RA-based routing) for mobility, i.e. boxes which may run >>>>> Mobile IPv6 but need something else than Mobile IPv6 Type >>>>> Codes. >>>>> >>>>> That is my doubt about MEXT activity and agenda planning, >>>>> thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Alex >>>>> >>>>> Le 14/03/2011 19:56, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit : >>>>>> Hi Fred, >>>>>> >>>>>> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is limited >>>>>> to the the Mobile IPv6 protocol. Hence, we decline your >>>>>> request. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, marcelo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribió: >>>>>>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien), >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach to >>>>>>> mobility management known as IRON: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html >>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The base IRON architecture document has now been published >>>>>>> as an experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing Research Group: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are >>>>>>> documented in the following active Internet drafts: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet >>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal >>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00 >>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present the >>>>>>> approach. Please let me know if that works for you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fred [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] >>>>>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of marcelo >>>>>>>> bagnulo braun Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:32 AM >>>>>>>> To: mext Subject: [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague >>>>>>>> meeting >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the >>>>>>>> chairs. please note that we are meeting on friday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT >>>>>>>> mailing list [email protected] >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing >>>>>> list [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing >>>>> list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list >>>> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list >>> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list >> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >