Re: [DMM Requirements] [WAS Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document

Hello Jouni and All,

I am trying to catch up with the DMM working group. 
I must admit that I was NOT able to follow all the discussions but I felt before being able to address the current practice and gap analysis, I needed to understand the proposed requirements.

So, I went ahead and read the Requirements draft one more time and I found a couple of things that are essential to be clarified in order to have a solid ground for hopefully a solid proposals and solutions.

   REQ1:  Distributed deployment

          IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by
          DMM MUST enable distributed deployment for mobility management
          of IP sessions so that traffic does not need to traverse
          centrally deployed mobility anchors and thus can be routed in
          an optimal manner.

[Ahmad]
In order to understand this requirement or may be in order for this requirement to be clear and makes sense, I would like to understand what is meant by IP session(s) in this context? And may be its relationship to the mobile node.


   REQ2:  Transparency to Upper Layers when needed

          DMM solutions MUST provide transparent mobility support above
          the IP layer when needed.  Such transparency is needed, for
          example, when, upon change of point of attachment to the
          Internet, an application flow cannot cope with a change in the
          IP address.  Otherwise, support for maintaining a stable home
          IP address or prefix during handovers may be declined.

[Ahmad]
This a simple requirement that is phrased in a way that makes it a little more complex than needed. However, my question here is: how this requirement is related to the "IP session(s)" mentioned in the REQ1? I believe it is fundamentally important to understand the relationship in order to be able to move forward.


In addition, I believe the remaining requirements sort of straight forward and clarification of the above two points is essential (at least to me)

Thanks for all the help!

Regards,
Ahmad

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:25 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Julien Laganier
Subject: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document

Folks,

We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider two documents on this topic to choose from:

[1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02
[2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01

and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for the WG document.

Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the other. 

The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between.

- Jouni & Julien
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm