Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes

Le 22/03/2011 21:28, Julien Laganier a écrit :
> Alex:
>
> What is your point? You're not happy with the agenda? Please be
> specific.

Because I earlier requested in private to Chairs a 5min slot in the
agenda and I did not receive reply, neither + nor -.

I guess(?) the reason of no reply may be similar to what was replied
publicly to Fred's request, hence my dissertation.  I may be wrong though.

Now publicly I would like to request a 5min slot to present advancement
of draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01.txt
which presents three new scenarios applicable to Vehicular
communications which use RA-based routing on Mobile Routers which may be
HA-less when no HA available, and run unmodified Mobile IPv6 when HA
available.

Alex

>
> --julien
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
> <[email protected]>  wrote:
>> Le 22/03/2011 17:45, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Yes, I meant so, and here is why.
>>
>> If I understand it correctly, HAC seems to be a new box with two
>> distinctive parts: one running a non-Mobile IP protocol (TLS
>> tunnelled Req/Resp, i.e. non Mobile IPv6) and another part which
>> runs pure Mobile IPv6 (BU/BAck).
>>
>> Me too: my draft's MR has two distinctive parts: one running a
>> non-Mobile IP protocol (ICMPv6 extensions for prefixes, i.e. non
>> Mobile IPv6) and another part which runs pure Mobile IPv6 (BU/BAck
>>  with NEMOv6) ("MR" is all over the draft and its definition is
>> that it runs Mobile IPv6 with NEMOv6.)
>>
>> (On another hand, e.g. draft-hampel-mext-ro-without-ha-00, another
>> agenda item, seems indeed to be modifications to the Mobile IPv6
>> protocol (new HoA Support Mobility Option in Mobility Header).
>> That seems more appropriate to the MEXT agenda if MEXT is defined
>> as being Mobile IPv6-only work.)
>>
>> That is why I think some items seem little appropriate to the
>> agenda.
>>
>> Or maybe MEXT is not only about modifications to Mobile IPv6 but it
>> is also something else, at which point more agenda items should be
>> accepted in all fairness.
>>
>>>>> 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....
>>
>> I am trying to understand this.
>>
>> I look at ironmike (IRON and MOBIKE) and it reads like using IKE
>> for supporting mobile nodes changing their addresses.  I think it
>> could be used together with Mobile IPv6: use MOBIKE mobility when
>> in an IRON domain or otherwise use Mobile IPv6 when handing over to
>> the non-IRON parts of Internet.
>>
>> (I read "IRON tradespace" as I read "SDO")
>>
>> I may not understand ironmike correctly, I just suppose.
>>
>> IMHO.
>>
>> Alex [*] draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>> list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>