[05:02:45] monden joins the room
[05:02:48] monden leaves the room
[05:04:04] cjbernardos joins the room
[05:04:12] <cjbernardos> Agenda bashing
[05:04:23] monden joins the room
[05:04:24] <cjbernardos> report on status of the WG by Thomasd
[05:04:33] <cjbernardos> RFC5889 published
[05:05:16] <cjbernardos> new charter sent to IESG today
[05:05:57] <cjbernardos> new charter presented by Thomas
[05:06:10] <cjbernardos> (no docs seems to be available on the meeting materials web site)
[05:06:24] <cjbernardos> 1. DHCPv6 operation over MANET
[05:07:12] <cjbernardos> 2. Analysis of Problem Space for distributed address configuration and service discovery
[05:07:28] <cjbernardos> Presentation by C. Perkins
[05:09:56] <cjbernardos> Charlie expresses his interest on working on non-DHCP solutions on the WG
[05:10:03] <cjbernardos> now resumes his presentation
[05:10:13] <cjbernardos> slide 2, problem statement
[05:12:10] <cjbernardos> slide 3, DHCP legacy hosts
[05:14:20] <cjbernardos> question by Jari Arkko
[05:14:50] <cjbernardos> Jari: what is the prefix that you are talking about in your slide?
[05:15:21] <cjbernardos> Charlie: there's a number of wyas this could be done, they are on the draft, like Prophet, etc.
[05:16:27] <cjbernardos> Jari: but why what "a very short prefix" as you say in your slide?
[05:22:43] <cjbernardos> Fred Templin: are you talking about a legacy host that attaches to a link to a router that has another interface that belongs to a MANET?
[05:23:01] <cjbernardos> slide 4, Legacy hosts running SLAAC
[05:26:17] <cjbernardos> Fred Templin: concerned about routing scalability problems
[05:26:55] <cjbernardos> Charlie Perkins: scalability is not relevant to this presentation
[05:28:33] <cjbernardos> Jari Arkko: is there any difference from scalability problem with your approach?
[05:30:56] <cjbernardos> Teco Boot: your battery lasts longer if you don't send that many routing messages
[05:32:33] <cjbernardos> Teco: how do routers know which ones have to take care of a particular legacy host?
[05:36:31] <cjbernardos> Teco also did some comments on how the routing ensures connectivity to the hosts
[05:37:27] <cjbernardos> Ryuji: why do we need to support legacy hosts?
[06:03:19] horser joins the room
[06:04:20] <horser> are there somebody brooadcast on live?
[06:04:40] <cjbernardos> I'm trying to scribe
[06:04:59] <cjbernardos> but I was hoping that there is the audio stream as well
[06:05:11] <cjbernardos> (not checked that)
[06:05:34] <horser> thanks
[06:06:15] <cjbernardos> it seems there is audio stream: http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ietf794.m3u
[06:08:09] <cjbernardos> Justin: I see two things: giving the initial address to the host and then moving to a new router
[06:08:29] <cjbernardos> Justin: second problem, I don't know if its in autoconf where to be solved
[06:10:35] <cjbernardos> Jari: the interface towards the host is similar to PMIP
[06:11:12] <cjbernardos> Jari: interface to the host is exactly the same thing in PMIP
[06:13:01] <cjbernardos> Thomas: I agree with what Justin said
[06:16:18] <cjbernardos> Mark: this does not seem to hard to me
[06:16:25] <cjbernardos> Mark: and it's been already done
[06:24:12] <cjbernardos> Jari: we also need to look if this is interesting from a user perspective
[06:24:24] <cjbernardos> Jari: from my personal perspective, I do find it useful
[06:24:58] <cjbernardos> Jari: on the other hand, you can try to run a kind-of pmip on top of this
[06:37:29] horser leaves the room
[06:44:41] <cjbernardos> Erik: in IPv4 you have one more concern, the address can be smaller than /30 and there should be one router there
[06:46:43] <cjbernardos> Ryuji: take the discussion to the list
[06:47:51] <cjbernardos> Teco: are we gonna discuss on non-DHCP based solutions in the charter?
[06:48:29] <cjbernardos> Charlie again: at the beginning we had many interesting discussion on solution space and then we got stuck
[06:48:45] <cjbernardos> Charli: majority of solutions are on the non-DHCP based space solution
[06:49:06] <cjbernardos> Charlie: it's not a big step to go for only-DHCP based
[06:49:18] <cjbernardos> Charlie: and I'm not interested in doing that
[06:49:53] <cjbernardos> Jari: the distributed part is in the charter
[06:50:06] <cjbernardos> Jari: but it's an analysis first on the problem space
[06:51:03] <cjbernardos> Charlie: question: if somebody submits a solution that is distributed, works well with AODV and OLSR and with legacy hosts, could that be published?
[06:52:44] <cjbernardos> Thomas: I don't feel comfortable picking one solution
[06:53:09] <cjbernardos> Thomas: better to agree first on what are the constraints
[06:53:46] <cjbernardos> Thomas: if we do it fast, then we can move to the design phase
[06:56:13] <cjbernardos> Jari: you have two weeks now to voice your concerns on the current wording of the charter
[06:57:53] <cjbernardos> Jari: you can also go for a different approach: standardize 5 experimental RFCs and then a couple of years later choose the one that got more traction in the market
[07:02:54] <cjbernardos> meeting finishes
[07:02:56] cjbernardos leaves the room
[07:03:02] monden leaves the room