Re: rechartering

Marco,


5/28/2014 3:35 PM, Marco Liebsch kirjoitti:
> Hi Jouni, all,
>
> let me pick up some comments again, which we should clarify.
>
> About anchor selection:
>
> Referring to the milestones, having the anchor re-selection document
> separated from the advanced anchor selection only by 3 months does not
> seem to be useful, even if you consider re-selection to be used only for advanced
> DMM deployment and operation, whereas basic anchor selection is required for
> any DMM deployment with decentralized data plane anchors.
>
> I understand this document treats solely selection and runtime re-selection,
> not the associated establishment of routing/tunnel states according to the

Actually, I was in an opinion that re-selection would also cover the 
needed parts for possible re-routing of traffic.. whatever the 
mechanisms is.

Does anyone else share the same view?

> selected anchor. So, I think both aspects, selection and re-selection, should
> go into a single document. Unless the WG decides that re-selection is too advanced,
> then it may go into a separate document when the base selection spec is almost ready,
> as it will depend on it.
>
> About forwarding path and signaling management:
>
> In particular if the support of runtime/mid-session anchor change is considered for the first
> set of DMM solution documents, the described work item about 'forwarding
> path and signaling management' should be given a milestone, as this is
> essential if anchors are changed mid-session and IP address continuation
> is expected. So far there is no document about this work item in the
> charter list.

Right, any suggestions for the actual document name and time lines?

> Inter-working between mobility functions and network nodes, e.g. routers,
> requires the use of some non-mobility protocol. DMM should at least describe
> which states (identifiers, locator addresses/IDs, ..) to expose through these
> protocols. That's what I understood behind mobility state exposure, whereas
> the text in the work items list reads more like this is about announcements
> from the network to an MN about the characteristics of an IP address to support
> the MN in picking the right address for an application. I know it's more a terms issue,
> but we need clarification what we expect from a work item.

The latter is what I had in mind.. mainly the MN<->network communication.

> Hope the above makes sense and we can easily clarify.

Sure.

- Jouni


>
> marco
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
>> Sent: Dienstag, 27. Mai 2014 10:51
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] rechartering
>>
>>
>> Now that the gap analysis I-D is almost on the stage of leaving the WG and the
>> requirements I-D has almost completed IESG, it would be time to return to the
>> rechartering topic.
>>
>> First, the latest revision can be found at:
>> https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter
>>
>> Second, have a look at it. There are few changes proposed by Alper eons ago
>> and corrected milestones pointed by Behcet.
>>
>> Third, let us get this finally done..
>>
>> - Jouni
>>
>> 4/22/2014 3:55 PM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Sorry for letting this topic to rot in a dark for the couple of last
>>> weeks. I'll crank out a revision shortly..
>>>
>>> - Jouni & Dapeng
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm