[11:57:00] --- kuntal has joined
[11:57:44] --- TJ has joined
[11:58:09] * TJ has set the topic to: MEXT Working Group, 9/7/08
[11:58:25] * TJ has set the topic to: MEXT Working Group, 12/7/08
[11:59:37] --- apetrescu has joined
[11:59:53] <apetrescu> hi vapi good to see you made it to the room
[12:01:30] <apetrescu> many slides at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/70/materials.html#wg-mext
[12:01:43] --- rjaksa has joined
[12:02:52] <apetrescu> ha ha
[12:03:11] <apetrescu> this is like that Cisco advertising contest: watch a web cam - who blinks first?
[12:03:35] <apetrescu> Marcelo Bagnulo is MB is is looking for a scribe
[12:03:46] <apetrescu> Ah!!!
[12:04:00] <kuntal> you are the scribe
[12:04:23] --- UlrichHerberg has joined
[12:04:30] <apetrescu> you just volunteered me
[12:04:39] <kuntal> :-)
[12:04:41] --- behcet.sarikaya has joined
[12:04:43] <apetrescu> :-)
[12:06:24] <apetrescu> Vijayt Devarapalli is VD is going to present Revising RFC 3775
[12:07:05] <apetrescu> these slides are at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/mext-6.ppt
[12:07:16] <apetrescu> slide: Update s to RFC 3775
[12:07:57] <apetrescu> Hesham Soliman is HS approaching mic
[12:08:08] <apetrescu> HS: shouldnt we just let people send issues and decide on scope? not miss should we
[12:08:19] <apetrescu> MB: not sure udenrstand your q, the scope of chgs is very small
[12:08:21] <apetrescu> HS: hope so
[12:08:23] <apetrescu> MB: clear
[12:08:41] <apetrescu> MB: VD has a set of issues, just starting the discussion, now we open the floor for disc for people having other conte
[12:08:49] <apetrescu> MB: send to mailing list: old text - new text
[12:08:57] <apetrescu> MB: minor, major - if minor then make sense to do it
[12:09:03] <apetrescu> slide: Bootstrapping
[12:10:11] <apetrescu> slide: Returning Home
[12:10:24] <apetrescu> Gerardo Giaretta approaching mic is GG
[12:10:56] --- john.zhao has joined
[12:11:09] <apetrescu> GG: in the previous slide, just to undesratand scope: do you mean put here some ref to bootstrapping/
[12:11:10] <apetrescu> ?
[12:11:16] <apetrescu> VD: notice the sections..
[12:11:22] <apetrescu> GG: still needs the sections?
[12:11:23] <apetrescu> VD: yes
[12:11:31] <apetrescu> GG: in the other slides about mip6/pmip6
[12:11:44] <apetrescu> GG: agree with issues, just try to understand from authors why MUST/SHOULD
[12:11:48] --- xiaohunhun has joined
[12:12:04] <apetrescu> GG: agree this is issue for pmip6/mip6 interactions doc, but if there's s hould there then
[12:12:13] <apetrescu> VD: checked with Charlie and Jim, not know
[12:12:29] <apetrescu> HS one of the reqs for updating: backward compatible: 2nd bullet change the format?
[12:12:36] <apetrescu> VD: presenting the issues, nothaving resolution.
[12:12:40] <apetrescu> VD: second one...
[12:12:42] <apetrescu> HS: what's issue?
[12:12:59] <apetrescu> VD: currently if lifetime is 0, or ChoA is HoA then returning home - this is not true to all cases
[12:13:07] <apetrescu> HS: but 4877 already does that
[12:13:14] <apetrescu> HS: already say hoa
[12:13:22] <apetrescu> VD: 4877 ikev2
[12:13:25] <apetrescu> HS: new format is that
[12:13:27] <apetrescu> VD: true
[12:13:31] <apetrescu> VD: minor clarification
[12:13:36] <apetrescu> HS: violating 3775?
[12:13:40] <apetrescu> VD: could read it that way
[12:13:48] <apetrescu> VD: if src addr is hoa addr then
[12:13:48] --- teco has joined
[12:13:52] <apetrescu> VD: in my...
[12:14:01] <apetrescu> HS: if violating 3775 then that's a problem
[12:14:08] <apetrescu> HS: not know how restrictive it is
[12:14:14] <apetrescu> George Tsirtsis
[12:14:27] <apetrescu> GT: what's the case HoA is same value to CoA and lifetime not 0 -what's the case?
[12:14:40] <apetrescu> VD: no case happening, but we allowed deregistration hoa-coa. lifetime
[12:14:51] <apetrescu> GT: identified in implementations not having code to do that?
[12:14:54] <apetrescu> VD: not that I know
[12:14:57] <apetrescu> Sri Gundavelli
[12:15:03] <apetrescu> SG: is it the case for ... v6?
[12:15:04] <apetrescu> VD: yes
[12:15:08] <apetrescu> SG: already coa
[12:15:11] <apetrescu> room: doesnt matter
[12:15:15] <apetrescu> Francis Dupont
[12:15:24] <apetrescu> FD: CoA is set to HoA (not HoA set to CoA)
[12:15:25] <apetrescu> VD: right
[12:15:34] <apetrescu> slide: MH Checksum Calculation
[12:15:56] <apetrescu> Benjamin Lim is BL
[12:16:13] <apetrescu> BL: 3775 - if CoA is set to HoA with lifetime reg... then HA will not drop this binding...
[12:16:26] <apetrescu> BL: unless lifetime set to 0 - deregistration, so there is a clearcut.
[12:16:31] <apetrescu> BL: that is in 3775
[12:16:36] <apetrescu> VD: let's discuss this to ml
[12:16:40] <apetrescu> slidE: Other Minor Issues
[12:19:40] <apetrescu> Ahmad Muhanna is AM
[12:19:50] <apetrescu> AM: minor thing about 135 - one of the...
[12:20:00] <apetrescu> AM: one of the options was to clarify this, other option?
[12:21:11] <apetrescu> (sorry couldn't get that MB comment because listening to it: I think he said to go talk about issues on the list and data tracker)
[12:21:21] <apetrescu> slide: Rechartering discussion
[12:22:10] <apetrescu> slide: no title
[12:23:23] <apetrescu> slide: no title
[12:24:35] <apetrescu> AM is going to present Binding Revocation for IPv6 Mobility
[12:24:48] <apetrescu> slides at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/mext-4.pdf
[12:25:24] --- UlrichHerberg has left
[12:25:34] <apetrescu> slide: Outline
[12:26:07] <apetrescu> slide: IPv6 Mobility Session Id
[12:26:10] <apetrescu> .
[12:26:23] --- intvelt has joined
[12:27:34] <apetrescu> slide: Binding Revocation Entities
[12:28:02] <apetrescu> slide: Revocation Message Flow
[12:28:16] <apetrescu> slide: Use Cases, Entities Actions
[12:28:31] <apetrescu> GG approaching mic
[12:28:52] <apetrescu> GG: up one slide
[12:29:12] <apetrescu> GG: here's binding revocation indication and ack, does this mean ack for mip6 will remove the bc entry?
[12:29:17] <apetrescu> GG: how is the HA operation?
[12:29:30] <apetrescu> GG: in previous slide there was brvoc indication and then binding...
[12:29:44] <apetrescu> GG: you may still want to keep the bu as main method (only) to change bc and delete
[12:29:50] <apetrescu> AM: ha can't send
[12:29:57] <apetrescu> AM: mn to confirm?
[12:29:59] <apetrescu> GG: yes
[12:30:10] <apetrescu> MB: cuts
[12:30:15] <apetrescu> AM: understands
[12:30:21] <apetrescu> HS: on next slide
[12:30:33] <apetrescu> HS: what do you mean by map revokes...
[12:30:39] <apetrescu> AM: mean.
[12:30:46] <apetrescu> HS: not such thing, shouldnt joke
[12:30:59] <apetrescu> AM: I defined session id, I don't want to ...
[12:31:02] <apetrescu> AM: I'm sorry
[12:31:09] <apetrescu> slide: ML Discussion
[12:31:29] <apetrescu> slidE: Next - REcommendation
[12:31:43] <apetrescu> slidE: Thank You!
[12:32:18] <apetrescu> Thierry Ernst is going to present "" slides at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/mext-5.pdf
[12:32:27] <apetrescu> Suresh Krishnan: what do we do?
[12:32:33] <apetrescu> MB: just go through presentation
[12:33:43] <apetrescu> slide" Additional Work Items for NEMO deployment
[12:34:16] <apetrescu> slide: NEMO work items in MEXT
[12:36:20] <apetrescu> slide: NEMO work items in MEXT : A bit of history
[12:36:35] --- fdupont has joined
[12:37:54] <apetrescu> slide: NEMO work items in MEXT:Deployment requirements
[12:39:29] <apetrescu> slide changed but kept title
[12:42:22] <apetrescu> HS approaching mic
[12:42:52] <apetrescu> HS: which ones of these bullets are not already in charteR? mcast and security?
[12:42:58] <apetrescu> TE: all of them are not currently in charter
[12:43:07] <apetrescu> TE: need to revisit according to use case from various industries
[12:43:13] <apetrescu> HS: isnt ro already in charter?
[12:43:23] <apetrescu> TE: yes but only ro, not enough to work only on req
[12:43:36] <apetrescu> TE: if we have ro solutions that dont address reqs it will not be delployed
[12:43:40] <apetrescu> Behcet Sarikaya is BS
[12:44:00] <apetrescu> BS: regarding mcast we have an activity mobopts, we have a draft about nemo multicast, being considered for multimob
[12:44:13] <apetrescu> slide: NEMO work items in MEXT:Moving forward
[12:46:02] <apetrescu> Vijay Devarapalli is going to present home link in SDOs slides at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/mext-8.pdf
[12:46:10] <apetrescu> slide: Use of Mobile IPv6 in SDOs
[12:47:23] <apetrescu> HS approaching mic
[12:47:52] <apetrescu> HS:half clarifying, nd runs gtp
[12:47:57] <apetrescu> VD: gtp could run
[12:48:01] <apetrescu> Junghoon Jee is JJ
[12:48:19] <apetrescu> JJ: even in 16 networks nd is required to run on hom elinks
[12:48:33] <apetrescu> slide: Booting up in the Home Link
[12:48:48] <apetrescu> Francis Dupont is FD approaching mic
[12:49:37] <apetrescu> FD: I believe on 2nd point is not in scope mobility, just like ikev2 is used on demand
[12:49:40] <apetrescu> VD: which 2nd bullet?
[12:50:01] <apetrescu> FD: the one saying mn has to initiate... certified on ikev2, is usually used on demand, so there's no demand to start with, in fact nothing to do with mobility
[12:50:06] <apetrescu> VD: it doesn't but if...
[12:50:27] <apetrescu> GG: similar comment to FD, in 3775 there's nothing or in 4788, about when the ikev2 exchange is establisehd
[12:50:33] <apetrescu> VD: it does say when you have to send a bu
[12:50:49] <apetrescu> GG: implementaiton specific, no text in ietf doc says that ikev2 is has to be set up only on
[12:50:56] <apetrescu> VD: "typically" you miss
[12:51:01] <apetrescu> GG: what typically means?
[12:51:05] <apetrescu> VD: som eimplementations
[12:51:09] <apetrescu> HS: not seeing the problem
[12:51:19] <apetrescu> HS: if on the home link you want send a bu
[12:51:28] <apetrescu> VD: some of these ptp links dont have dhcp
[12:51:34] <apetrescu> George Tsirtsis is GT
[12:51:42] <apetrescu> GT: notion of hom elink doesnt exist until you have a HA
[12:51:46] <apetrescu> GT: until then...
[12:51:54] <apetrescu> GT: only home link when you do ike
[12:52:07] <apetrescu> GT: we discussed this offline a bit, there's something here that need to clarify
[12:53:02] <apetrescu> ...
[12:53:07] <apetrescu> TJ Kniveton
[12:53:20] <apetrescu> TK we made assumptions about it being shared
[12:53:38] <apetrescu> slide: Forwarding at the Home Agent
[12:54:09] <apetrescu> GT approaching mic
[12:54:46] <apetrescu> GT: being intentionally misterious you are
[12:54:47] <apetrescu> room laughs
[12:54:52] <apetrescu> GT: some links don't do nd
[12:54:58] <apetrescu> GT: ptp links work as any other links
[12:55:13] <apetrescu> GT: is it a problem to be able to understand when you're on home link or on ptp link?
[12:55:24] <apetrescu> GT: hard to get into a description without a SDO description
[12:55:28] <apetrescu> that was VD sorry
[12:55:39] <apetrescu> VD: looking into something that ties in...
[12:55:50] <apetrescu> GT: your intentions are pure
[12:55:57] <apetrescu> GT: we need to be specific to understand
[12:56:03] <apetrescu> VD: those details dont want to capture
[12:56:08] <apetrescu> HS: this is completely vague
[12:56:17] <apetrescu> HS: 3gpp/2 links ? no problem here
[12:56:40] <apetrescu> VD: 3gpp folk is considering other archis where ggsn is not... ace work, pmipv6 creating the ...
[12:56:46] <apetrescu> HS: 3 four different scenarios?
[12:56:51] <apetrescu> HS: that particular scenario works fine
[12:56:58] <apetrescu> HS: should include this in the charter?
[12:57:06] <apetrescu> VD:...
[12:57:14] <apetrescu> GG: agreed with HS need more work to scope the problem
[12:57:23] --- behcet.sarikaya has left
[12:57:35] <apetrescu> GG: if the MN is at home, on home link then the HA functionality is not enabled... HA doesn't need to fwd anything
[12:57:39] <apetrescu> VD: doesnt make sense
[12:57:44] <apetrescu> VD:...
[12:57:48] <apetrescu> GG: not the ha
[12:57:51] <apetrescu> GG: the router
[12:58:04] <apetrescu> GG: not need a bc entry for that
[12:58:13] <apetrescu> VD: in these scenarios the ha is colocated with ha
[12:58:20] <apetrescu> GG: even if colocated no need to intercept
[12:58:26] <apetrescu> VD:...
[12:58:40] <apetrescu> Karen Nielsen is KN
[12:58:54] <apetrescu> KN: there is a problem in these contexts, an issue between the HA and the AR, there's an interface between...
[12:59:04] <apetrescu> KN: doesnt mean that is the ha functionality doing forwarding
[12:59:17] <apetrescu> KN: there is an issue in these networks, but not necessarily an issue for the HA functionality as such
[12:59:24] <apetrescu> slidE: Service Selection Option
[12:59:44] <apetrescu> slide: One Possible Solution
[13:00:50] <apetrescu> slide: Next Steps
[13:01:37] <apetrescu> FD: if I understnad well, the only rerlationship between this and MIPv6 is that you want to reuse mipv6, but always at home? visibly
[13:01:42] <apetrescu> MB: closin this subject
[13:02:20] <apetrescu> Sri Gundavelli is SG is going to present Generic Notofication... slides I think are not available
[13:02:24] <apetrescu> slide: Status
[13:03:11] <apetrescu> GG approaching mic
[13:03:22] <apetrescu> GG: relation to other drafts?
[13:03:33] <apetrescu> GG: can this gen notif message used to request a revokation?
[13:03:43] <apetrescu> SG: here we dont specify a receiver action
[13:03:48] <apetrescu> SG: revocation needs a more.
[13:03:56] <apetrescu> SG: more informational events are considered here.
[13:04:06] <apetrescu> SG: such as "expire of prepaid billing"
[13:04:21] <apetrescu> VD: to answer GG, the binding revocation _is_ using...
[13:04:31] <apetrescu> GG: the draft says, I'm ... use the format of this draft?
[13:04:33] <apetrescu> SG: yes
[13:04:42] <apetrescu> room is not sure
[13:04:57] <apetrescu> slide: GRE Tunnelling Support
[13:05:07] <apetrescu> slide: GRE Tunnelling Support - Overview
[13:06:14] <apetrescu> slide: Use Cases
[13:06:17] <apetrescu> HS/GT app mic
[13:06:25] <apetrescu> HS: you just brushed over use cases
[13:06:28] <apetrescu> SG: we start here
[13:06:35] <apetrescu> HS: why copy this from v4 to v6?
[13:06:47] <apetrescu> SG: legacy traffic? how to tcarry that?
[13:06:50] <apetrescu> HS: has a protocol number
[13:06:53] <apetrescu> SG: what is the payload
[13:07:01] <apetrescu> HS: has a protocol number, next header is IP x number
[13:07:07] <apetrescu> HS: are you seriously...
[13:07:10] <apetrescu> SG: no no, this is use case
[13:07:36] <apetrescu> GT: similar to HS, I think clear req is there for this for pmipv6, overlapping private ipv4 addresses, but for mip6 it's critical what the usecase is?
[13:07:52] <apetrescu> SG: there's a seqno in gre that's useful for endpoint to quickly drop the packet, useful to carry rrtp trafic
[13:08:01] <apetrescu> SG: how do endpoints, clearly hoaw that's being used
[13:08:07] <apetrescu> SG: almost all major deployments is gre
[13:08:12] <apetrescu> SG: those use cases for seqno
[13:08:33] <apetrescu> GT: the gre use in mip4 has been typically between fa and ha, in the core, but when e2e it's not sense
[13:08:46] <apetrescu> PEte McCann: this does make sense, the type information
[13:08:56] <apetrescu> SG: thanks
[13:09:01] <apetrescu> MB: make state your name
[13:09:15] <apetrescu> HS: when considering charter items, if there's use case, you can say that about everything
[13:09:19] <apetrescu> HS: many ways of tunnelling
[13:09:38] <apetrescu> HS:...
[13:10:02] <apetrescu> slide: Use Cases
[13:11:02] <apetrescu> SG continues presenting
[13:11:17] <apetrescu> Virtual Home Network Support in Mobile IPv6
[13:12:20] <apetrescu> if you guys have the slides please send the pointer
[13:13:08] <apetrescu> slide: Requirement
[13:13:22] --- washad has joined
[13:13:28] <apetrescu> VD approaching mic
[13:13:45] <apetrescu> slide: Key Points
[13:14:10] <apetrescu> VD: there was a proposal to get rid of home link, make it virtual, made sure a virtual hom elink always works
[13:14:13] <apetrescu> SG: ...
[13:15:43] <apetrescu> slide changed bu kept title
[13:15:48] <apetrescu> MB: your time is about to be up
[13:16:30] <apetrescu> Keiichi Shima is Ks
[13:16:32] <teco> Slides: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/mext-18.ppt
[13:16:38] <apetrescu> KS: I'm proposing to define a subset.
[13:16:48] <apetrescu> SG: we defined ha operation on virtual hom elink
[13:16:57] <apetrescu> KS: all has and mns have to implement 3775
[13:17:05] <apetrescu> SG: only some considerations it provides because
[13:17:15] <apetrescu> SG: this is just informational spec, that's the idea
[13:17:53] <apetrescu> who's presenting?
[13:17:58] <washad> Hi Deng
[13:19:03] <apetrescu> slides of this presentation are at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/mext-18.ppt
[13:19:52] <apetrescu> sorry it's not that its http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/mext-17.pdf
[13:19:59] <apetrescu> slide: Problem
[13:20:10] <apetrescu> slide: Related modifications
[13:20:49] <apetrescu> slide: Questions to Working group
[13:21:43] <apetrescu> VD is going to present 4283bis slides at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/mext-13.ppt
[13:22:46] <apetrescu> slide: Updates to 4283
[13:23:57] <apetrescu> Karen Nielsen is going to present DSMIPv6Home Network Types slides at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/mext-19.ppt
[13:24:10] <apetrescu> KN: slides: DSMIPv6...
[13:24:17] <apetrescu> slide: Proposed Extension
[13:25:15] <apetrescu> slide: Possible Deployement Environment
[13:25:18] <apetrescu> SG approaching mic
[13:25:32] <apetrescu> SG leaving mic
[13:25:49] <apetrescu> GT approaching mic
[13:26:04] <apetrescu> GT: do you think tehres's an issue with v6-only links?
[13:26:15] <apetrescu> KN: the issue I'm coming from is an IPv4-only home network issues
[13:26:20] <apetrescu> KN: would consider that as well
[13:26:39] <apetrescu> VD: that's GT issue, there'd be an iusse, your hom elink only ipv6 pdp cotext... then there's no... IPv4...
[13:26:47] <apetrescu> KN: theoretically there's an issue: how deployment is
[13:26:58] <apetrescu> HS: for normal IP people not knowing ...
[13:27:10] <apetrescu> HS: IPv6 stack is enabled on HA, just not on the link, not analogy with ethernet links
[13:27:54] <apetrescu> HS: no access on...
[13:28:07] <apetrescu> VD: not the same how the virtual link...
[13:28:13] <apetrescu> VD: have a sort of virtual home link
[13:28:23] <apetrescu> KN: if attached to an IPv4 only network than...
[13:28:37] <apetrescu> SG: if IPv6 stack is assumed, not know how to not have any IPv6 interface on interface
[13:28:48] <apetrescu> HS: best way... virtual IPv6 network
[13:28:56] <apetrescu> KN: small issue
[13:29:00] <apetrescu> KN: more a conceptual change
[13:29:17] <apetrescu> KN: make sure using BU sending a registration for IPv4 or for IPv6
[13:29:30] <apetrescu> slide: Changes/Adds-on required
[13:30:39] <apetrescu> Suresh Krishnan going to present ???
[13:31:07] <apetrescu> slides: Some Problems...
[13:31:37] <apetrescu> (these slides I really can't find)
[13:32:18] <apetrescu> slide: TO Operations (2)
[13:32:47] <apetrescu> slide: TO Operations: MIPv6 RO Mode
[13:33:08] <apetrescu> VD: questions as an ... IPR Nokia has like exactlkyo on this mechanism
[13:33:13] <apetrescu> Jean Michel Combes
[13:33:26] <apetrescu> LMC: the routing header of home address maybe used by middleobox firewalls...
[13:33:32] <apetrescu> SK: policy that is
[13:33:41] <apetrescu> SK: maybe a slighlty different recommendation for firewalls
[13:33:52] <apetrescu> JMC: you have to take into account such a big modification
[13:33:59] <apetrescu> MB: after all these presentations
[13:34:22] <apetrescu> MB: people proposing stuff, then... if too many clarifyin qs... probably need to work on a more concise way of epressing
[13:34:49] <apetrescu> MB: what do people think in general what should we work on? Any new topic? Or a particular on NEMO Thierry's presentaiton (just an example)...
[13:35:26] <apetrescu> GT:just as a general princile, with some of the proposals, there is some mipv6 work that's required, then it's how is this work used by other wgs like netlmm
[13:35:30] <apetrescu> GT: how to handle this
[13:35:47] <apetrescu> GT: here is mext, there is mipv6 protocol, there might be use of how netlmm uses revokation.
[13:36:00] <apetrescu> GT: should that probably be defined netlmm, maybe here just something generic
[13:36:27] <apetrescu> HS: couple generlal comments, the NEMO work the RO, the rest of stuff on Thierry's list some of them is really generic, need more concrete definition what needs to be done
[13:36:51] <apetrescu> HS: my conition depends on how much Chairs think can be done, may have already for 6-7 months, couple of small items in the proposed charter.
[13:37:32] <apetrescu> AM: mentioning I want to mention for revocation a generic solution applicable for all cases I think it's required, two different rfcs, all mip extensions, good to continue with this, difference has dependency on 3gpp sort of implemented
[13:37:40] <apetrescu> AM: I'd like to see revocation adaopted in charter
[13:37:57] <apetrescu> TE: regardning nemo, there's no new WG items right now, it's too early, but we need to extend req document to ...
[13:38:18] <apetrescu> MS: Thierry's q is whether if we work on ro only - is that useful ? or should we extend the scope?
[13:38:22] <apetrescu> that was MB not MS
[13:38:30] <apetrescu> MB: not make sense to work on something
[13:38:37] <apetrescu> MB: ...
[13:38:57] <apetrescu> TE: extend the wording, reqord the sentence - not only reqs ro, but deployment ro including ro and multihoming
[13:39:10] <apetrescu> HS: wording should be genric enough to be flexibleto add features in the future?
[13:39:18] <apetrescu> TE: extend that to say deployment reqs
[13:39:20] <apetrescu> HS: I agree
[13:39:22] <apetrescu> GT: this is fine
[13:39:37] <apetrescu> FT: careful trying to design systems - IETF is not good at that, we design tools
[13:39:52] <apetrescu> GT: tools that are missing need to be abstracted, that's what we work on, not systems for airpsace
[13:40:06] <apetrescu> TE: the doc we have are coming from people workining in this area...
[13:40:15] <apetrescu> TE: a means for ietf to udnertand what are the real means
[13:40:22] <apetrescu> Malcolm Elqys...(?)
[13:40:43] <apetrescu> ME: we already have 3 specific usecases, shouldn't we first set first on these 3 usescases before netertainigning a host of new items?
[13:40:45] --- john.zhao has left: Computer went to sleep
[13:40:50] <apetrescu> MB: solutions for htiese reqs
[13:41:09] <apetrescu> MB: a pure q for that: when you design RO do you also need to take intoa ccount multihonning? are the problems related?
[13:41:18] <apetrescu> ME: related, but issue is what to do first?
[13:41:22] <apetrescu> TE: no, all at once
[13:41:31] <apetrescu> ME: problem we already agreed on use cases
[13:41:36] <apetrescu> MB: not changing that
[13:41:49] <apetrescu> MB: for a solution for ro in airpsace do we also need to take other aspects?
[13:41:59] <apetrescu> ME:...
[13:42:01] <apetrescu> MB:...
[13:42:06] <apetrescu> ME: band this I'm trying to
[13:42:09] <apetrescu> MB: I share your concern
[13:42:24] <apetrescu> SK: RO is pretty good, but consider other related aspects: not ...
[13:42:30] <apetrescu> SK: not future proof? not good.
[13:42:38] <apetrescu> SK: not come up with something we ...
[13:42:46] <apetrescu> SK: tunnelling optimization, good for wireless links
[13:42:54] <apetrescu> SK: binding revokation as generic - we should do
[13:42:58] <apetrescu> TJ Kniveton is TJ
[13:43:05] <apetrescu> TJ: confused by this discussion regarding RO
[13:43:30] <apetrescu> TJ: in NEMO WG we made focus on actual deployment scenario, not trying to do lot of research in RO, looka thwat people are interested to deploy, what are the barriers?
[13:43:43] <apetrescu> TJ: if people read thse docs, not know what other types of thins you MB refer on?
[13:43:53] <apetrescu> TJ: if we work, along things may come up, things may ....
[13:44:07] <apetrescu> TJ: all normal considerations about making it future proof and scalable, not sure what the problem is
[13:44:10] <apetrescu> TJ: good to work on.
[13:44:19] --- john.zhao has joined
[13:44:24] <apetrescu> TJ: the constituceny of these industries came to us, put forward protocol design
[13:44:32] <apetrescu> GG: q to chairs: what is the expected timeline?
[13:44:38] <apetrescu> GG: up to dec 2008?
[13:44:47] <apetrescu> GG: still more than one year?
[13:44:54] <apetrescu> GG: to prioritize we need to understand timeline
[13:44:59] <apetrescu> MB: good q
[13:45:09] <apetrescu> MB: take very few items now in the short term
[13:45:20] <apetrescu> GG: you're targetting for rechartering by next ietf?
[13:45:32] <apetrescu> MB: we need to converge then tallk to ad, they decide wnot go there
[13:45:41] <apetrescu> MB: not thinking what to do in 2 yr time
[13:45:49] <apetrescu> GG: clear we should not adopt all these.
[13:45:52] <apetrescu> MB: right
[13:46:10] <apetrescu> AM: considering tunnelling IPv6 and MIPv6 overload - )_if_ we can optimize that it's a good idea.
[13:46:19] <intvelt> Alex, ME was Malcolm Airst (I think), so MA really
[13:46:20] <apetrescu> AM: reduce 40 to 8 bytes, including that in charter is very useful
[13:46:46] <apetrescu> MB: commenintg on specific items, but not opening the mic
[13:47:41] <apetrescu> MB presents Proposed_recharter_items.txt
[13:47:46] <apetrescu> MB: no clarifying questions
[13:48:04] <apetrescu> GG: q on text?
[13:49:07] <apetrescu> MB: shut up
[13:49:08] <apetrescu> ...
[13:49:14] <apetrescu> VD: is this needed for mip6?
[13:49:25] <apetrescu> VD: the fact that it can also be used for mip6 is a side effect
[13:49:46] <apetrescu> GT: before we had clarifications qs about what the parcitular ws are meant: then we need to discuss differently, HA should it be used
[13:49:53] <apetrescu> GT: we consider that? or not?
[13:49:55] <apetrescu> ...
[13:50:04] <apetrescu> MB: we don't have time to have discussion for all items
[13:50:12] <apetrescu> MB: I remove text and just put title of slides
[13:50:22] <apetrescu> MB: this is general problem we discussed on these presentations
[13:50:28] <apetrescu> MB: is that better?
[13:50:31] <apetrescu> room: yes
[13:50:53] <apetrescu> MB:MB: how many people interested in binding workin g on revocation for mobility?
[13:51:08] <apetrescu> MB: how many people think we should not work on this?
[13:51:30] <apetrescu> MB: how many poeple think we should do some work on home link operation?
[13:51:52] <apetrescu> MB: how many people think we should not work on this?
[13:51:58] <apetrescu> HS: the result was clear?
[13:52:04] <apetrescu> room: then raise your hand
[13:52:07] <apetrescu> HS: maybe
[13:52:24] <apetrescu> MB: we need a more clear exact description of what's the point there
[13:52:25] <TJ> (HS said the presentation was unclear not the result)
[13:52:41] <apetrescu> MB: how many people think we should do some work on IUP tunnelling optimization
[13:52:51] <apetrescu> MB: not work on this?
[13:53:20] <apetrescu> MB: how many people think we should work generic notification message?
[13:53:34] <apetrescu> MB: not should we?
[13:53:50] <apetrescu> MB: how many people think we should do some work on GRE reqs
[13:54:00] <apetrescu> MB: should not?
[13:54:22] <apetrescu> MB: how many peoploe think we should work on item 6 4283bis?
[13:54:37] <apetrescu> MB: how many people think we should not do work on 4283bis?
[13:55:02] <apetrescu> MB: how many people think we should work on ... mip6-authprotocol-bootstrap?
[13:55:36] <apetrescu> Jari Arkko is JA
[13:55:40] <apetrescu> JA: this is a preliminary check
[13:55:58] <apetrescu> JA: Chairs are asking for preliminary information from the group... if not enough information...
[13:56:25] <apetrescu> VD: let me clarify why no presentation: I wrote this in back in 3gpp2, but after 3gpp2 came to use IPsec, I lost interest in draft, I l
[13:56:33] <apetrescu> VD: some folks may have interest on it
[13:56:40] <apetrescu> MB: should we work on this raise hands.
[13:57:13] <apetrescu> MB: how many people think we should do some work on iKEv3/iopsec
[13:57:18] <apetrescu> HS: not taking...
[13:57:23] <apetrescu> MB: not work on this?
[13:57:41] <apetrescu> MB: how many people think we should do work on virtual home link config for mip6?
[13:57:50] <apetrescu> MB: how many people think we should not do work on this?
[13:58:23] <apetrescu> MB: how many people think we should do work on etxtedn dsmipv6 home network support
[13:58:31] <apetrescu> MB: how many people think we should not do work on this?
[13:58:58] <apetrescu> Julien Laganier is JL
[13:59:05] <apetrescu> JL: I'm going to send email on list woith all these
[13:59:25] <apetrescu> GT: now that we saw presentaitons and some indications about interest but we have not clue on 'why'?
[13:59:32] <apetrescu> GT: because only asked clarifying questions
[13:59:36] <apetrescu> MB: not enough time
[13:59:45] <apetrescu> GT: maybe less presentations so we understand what we should do
[13:59:54] <apetrescu> MB: short time to have criteria to select presentaitons
[14:00:05] --- washad has left
[14:00:06] <apetrescu> MB: probably for future presentations now wew have some way to gauge
[14:00:10] <apetrescu> TE: nemo tools question?
[14:00:16] <apetrescu> MB: preliminary at this stage?
[14:00:22] <apetrescu> TE: for VD it was the same
[14:00:31] <apetrescu> MB: for NEMO thinkg, this special 10min presentation...
[14:00:40] <apetrescu> MMB: not yet clear to vote on this thing at this stage
[14:00:44] <apetrescu> TE: it's as open as the others
[14:00:51] <apetrescu> TE: still good to get sense from the room
[14:00:58] <apetrescu> TE: more reqs oronly ro?
[14:01:03] <apetrescu> MB: ok
[14:01:07] <apetrescu> MB: what is the q?
[14:01:23] <apetrescu> TE: the q is: do people want to extend the scope of reqs to include multhioming or other hands?
[14:01:28] <apetrescu> TE: who wants this reaise hands
[14:01:39] <apetrescu> MB: a bad idea, raise yuour hand?
[14:01:50] <apetrescu> ...
[14:02:03] <apetrescu> HS: miscount, a q on dsmip you asked for...
[14:02:05] <apetrescu> minus 1
[14:02:33] <apetrescu> VD: quesiton, the same q was aksed for these two items on the mailing lis , rhjgt?
[14:02:47] <apetrescu> MB: this voting is to understand how intereste there is, there are some cases where we don't care
[14:02:59] <apetrescu> MB: to understand where we stand, doesn't really mean we accep/treject anything
[14:03:30] <apetrescu> JA: this is preliminary pool, what does the room here think. The list we'll talk more. The qs for that process may not even be decided yet.
[14:03:51] <apetrescu> JA:not sure you charter can do everything, what the priority is is a key issue, I'll think about how to continue discuss on the mailing list
[14:04:00] <apetrescu> MB:proceeding to the next and final type of presentation.
[14:04:12] <apetrescu> MB: presentation from people that want some feedback from this community
[14:04:53] <apetrescu> Gerardo Giaretta is going to present EAP-Based Keying for IP Mobility Protocols
[14:05:15] <apetrescu> slides at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/mext-21.ppt
[14:05:28] <apetrescu> slide: What is this about?
[14:06:09] <apetrescu> slide: Motivation
[14:07:11] <apetrescu> slide: HOKEY Background
[14:07:56] <apetrescu> slide: Key hierarchy
[14:08:43] <apetrescu> slide: Key derivation
[14:09:00] <apetrescu> HS: is this Data negotiated somewhere?
[14:09:01] <apetrescu> GG: no
[14:09:10] <apetrescu> GG: didnt find any motivation to include any of that
[14:09:17] <apetrescu> HS: so not applicable to AMK?
[14:09:20] <apetrescu> Alper Yegin
[14:09:30] <apetrescu> AY: wouldn't you have some protocol specific bits, bind?
[14:09:38] <apetrescu> AY: hA address, mn, home address...?
[14:09:43] <apetrescu> AY: what comes into key binding?
[14:09:50] <apetrescu> GG: that could be done with _label_
[14:09:59] <apetrescu> GG: doing this binding between the protocol and the ky
[14:10:07] <apetrescu> AY: that bionds only to the papplication, not to endpoint
[14:10:14] <apetrescu> GG: for endpoint you may not know the...
[14:10:18] <apetrescu> AY: that can be a problem
[14:10:28] <apetrescu> AY: if we have a key we should know the endpoints
[14:10:40] <apetrescu> AY: we tried that in the wimax forum, you should look at that
[14:10:48] <apetrescu> GG: how bind if you don't know the... address
[14:10:54] <TJ> HA address
[14:10:57] <apetrescu> AY: look at detail,s long to present here
[14:11:32] <apetrescu> slide: Next steps
[14:12:01] <apetrescu> AY: relevant work is happening in mipshop: how to support fmipv6, two concrete proposals
[14:12:04] <apetrescu> AY: potential overlap
[14:12:11] <apetrescu> GG: for that placeholder there's no draft
[14:12:17] <apetrescu> AY: is your thing plugging into that?
[14:12:38] <apetrescu> GG: this draft we want to as is writte, it should just the kye derivation - how do you perform signalling, you could use this draft...
[14:12:49] <TJ> Great job on jabber notes, Alex!!
[14:12:50] <apetrescu> GG: you need to define somehow in the FBU how to use those keys, not go in those details
[14:12:54] <TJ> gotta go to VPN land..
[14:12:58] <apetrescu> AY: key derivation
[14:13:02] <apetrescu> (TJ thanks)
[14:13:06] --- TJ has left
[14:13:09] <apetrescu> AY: not chaning mipv6 at all
[14:13:18] <apetrescu> AY: what you do here just doing the key derivaiton part, not SA
[14:13:20] <apetrescu> GG: yes
[14:13:28] <apetrescu> HS: just a key hierarchy doc, generic for any mobility
[14:13:31] <apetrescu> AY: so it's a superset(
[14:13:41] <apetrescu> GG: need to define how EAP serverse send the key to server
[14:13:47] <apetrescu> GG: these are sepcific to which endpoint
[14:14:00] <apetrescu> GG: in case of ipv6 yuou need some way to se nd key to Access Router
[14:14:17] <apetrescu> AY: please read our draft, we don't send anything. MSK is based on... there may be some debate you need to gothgourh.
[14:14:31] <apetrescu> SG: multiple entities, handover keys has reliance, can you talk about use case on mipv6?
[14:14:51] <apetrescu> GG: the use case for MIPV6 probably in the IKEv2 you hjust use the ley derived, not need to eap again with same eap server...
[14:14:55] <apetrescu> GG: ..
[14:15:04] <apetrescu> GG: you may want to skip the skiep eaytp exchange
[14:15:09] <apetrescu> GG: a key as a pressure key
[14:15:15] <apetrescu> GG: rovide new with a call flow
[14:15:23] <apetrescu> JA: I have a few issues or questions before taking this on
[14:15:35] <apetrescu> JA: what s the relationship with past bootstrapping work in mipshop?
[14:15:50] <apetrescu> JA: not talk that now, the bigger question is 'why'? What's driving this? Who'd use this?
[14:15:55] <apetrescu> GG: 3gpp2
[14:15:59] <apetrescu> JA: on their official dependence list?
[14:16:03] <apetrescu> GG: need to double check
[14:16:15] <apetrescu> GG: 3gpp internal dependence list, need to check the official one.
[14:16:19] <apetrescu> Hui Deng is HD
[14:16:26] <apetrescu> HD: multihoming consideration for key hierarchy?
[14:16:34] <apetrescu> GG: no, just how to use the keys
[14:16:41] <apetrescu> GG: multihoming is left to other...
[14:16:48] --- john.zhao has left: Computer went to sleep
[14:16:50] <apetrescu> GG: thank you
[14:17:00] <apetrescu> MB: next is ... Ahmad here?
[14:17:02] <apetrescu> SG: he left
[14:17:13] <apetrescu> MB: next is John Zhao (is JZ)
[14:17:48] <apetrescu> slide: The limitation in curent NEMO scenario - Problem STatement
[14:18:02] <apetrescu> slides are at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/mext-22.ppt
[14:18:45] <apetrescu> slide: Index
[14:19:10] <apetrescu> slide: Problem 1 ---- MR loop
[14:19:23] --- xiaohunhun has left
[14:21:37] <apetrescu> slide: Problem 2 entry point selection
[14:22:35] <apetrescu> GT approaching mic
[14:22:52] <apetrescu> GT: what kind of information you would provide for the upper level router
[14:22:59] <apetrescu> JZ: the details can be relied on other
[14:23:06] <apetrescu> GT: what kind of informaiton you think about/
[14:23:27] <apetrescu> JZ: the conclusion in the later we will introduce we think from the different problems, and information about in detail is useful, in some cases or scenarios
[14:23:50] <apetrescu> JZ: for example, if the mobile entity is the mn or mr, on the other side and in the network side the deviuce is fixed or mobile, this can be powerfull tools
[14:23:56] <apetrescu> JZ: this is out of scope is solution
[14:24:00] <apetrescu> JZ: this is simple result
[14:24:07] <apetrescu> GT: is it something like metrics?
[14:24:14] <apetrescu> GT: routing protocol running giving you that one
[14:24:17] <apetrescu> JZ: yes
[14:24:28] <apetrescu> JZ: general suggestion, only tools which one affects which mobile
[14:24:32] <apetrescu> Ryuji Wakikawa is RW
[14:24:57] <apetrescu> RW: eg is the MR keeps ending the RAs even if disconnected, if your lfn connected to the mr... it's good to know whether the mr has a binding or not
[14:25:09] <apetrescu> GT: to handle that you can handle a routing protocol, metric would be infinite
[14:25:22] <apetrescu> SG: comment, on roaming interface you're not allowed to advertise any prefix
[14:25:30] <apetrescu> JZ: right
[14:25:40] <apetrescu> JZ: this is the requirement form the problem can be included,
[14:26:03] <apetrescu> JZ: if needed to provide for htis reason, this is up to ... see this problem if we assume how, useful information, then this problem becomes simple
[14:26:13] <apetrescu> slide: Scenarios of PMIP related
[14:28:13] <apetrescu> Carlos Bernardos thinking about going to mic
[14:28:19] <apetrescu> is CB
[14:29:20] <apetrescu> CB: in my understanding you use proxy mip or thise kinds of solution to avoid support in terminalnal and reduce signalling... why don't you just put nemo on the mobilrouter and have the lma be the HA
[14:29:31] --- fdupont has left: Computer went to sleep
[14:29:32] <apetrescu> CB: you will be reducing singlaling, you would be supporting...
[14:29:37] <apetrescu> CB: why something else?
[14:29:52] <apetrescu> SG: if you have to do that you need one more hoa, because you operate on cmip-mip mode
[14:30:01] <apetrescu> CB: but iyou do assume... then not need one hoa
[14:30:12] <apetrescu> SG: if the mobile is on the home link, it will never register find prefixes
[14:30:34] <apetrescu> JZ: yes because to mobile router you can get it is only yours, the kind of be, be straighted, applied, under the mobile oruter
[14:30:45] <apetrescu> JZ: the moving network can be different from the... is acceptable
[14:31:01] <apetrescu> JZ: to this case, if the moving network come to pmip domain then the prefix of the moving network can be specialy
[14:31:11] <apetrescu> JZ: considered, supported in my work
[14:31:26] <apetrescu> JZ: after that we can see the next slide
[14:32:08] <apetrescu> MB: time is up
[14:33:15] <apetrescu> slide: Problems and requirements of PMIP related
[14:33:29] <apetrescu> MB: we're 5min over time
[14:33:35] <apetrescu> MB: need to wrapup
[14:33:40] <apetrescu> slide: solution
[14:34:03] <apetrescu> slide: Conclusions and suggestion
[14:34:20] <apetrescu> MB: thank you guys, the meeting is over, thanks.
[14:34:23] <apetrescu> (adjourned)
[14:34:25] --- intvelt has left
[14:34:46] --- apetrescu has left
[14:35:31] --- kuntal has left
[15:01:10] --- rjaksa has left
[15:09:52] --- teco has left
[15:11:14] --- john.zhao has joined
[15:14:54] --- john.zhao has left