[10:43:30] jariarkko joins the room [10:56:39] behcet.sarikaya joins the room [10:58:51] fomula joins the room [11:02:49] agenda bashing [11:03:14] jasso1 joins the room [11:03:55] jasso1 leaves the room [11:03:58] WG status update [11:04:54] HeikkiMahkonen joins the room [11:05:01] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/netext-11.pdf [11:05:36] Yoshi joins the room [11:06:10] slide 2 [11:06:26] Sri on mic [11:06:38] rababy joins the room [11:07:50] Marco presenting localized routing PS [11:07:56] Alex.Petrescu joins the room [11:08:10] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/netext-0.ppt [11:09:07] slide 3 [11:09:52] Qin Wu on mic [11:09:58] AdrianFarrel joins the room [11:14:35] Rajeev asking Q on slide 4 [11:14:48] LMA-LMA signaling? [11:14:59] PJS200 joins the room [11:15:02] Marco: it is solution domain [11:15:39] Rajeev: we should decide LMA-LMA signaling or not [11:16:31] Rajeev: in MIP no inter-HA signaling [11:17:23] Kent on mic [11:18:01] Alper on mic [11:18:40] Qin on mic [11:19:42] Marco: single PMIP domain only was already decided upon [11:19:54] Raj on mic [11:21:08] Rajeev on mic [11:24:51] Sri thinks no need for inter-LMA signaling [11:26:28] Jean-Michel on mic [11:27:12] Subir on mic [11:28:57] Desire joins the room [11:29:23] .. [11:30:35] same domain different domain discussion [11:33:44] sureshk joins the room [11:39:34] JanMelen joins the room [11:43:33] slide 9 [11:43:38] slide 10 [11:45:29] slide 11 on IPv4 transport network [11:50:46] Kent thinks we need to include IPv4 transport [11:52:09] sri thinks we should stay within the same domain scope [11:53:42] sureshk leaves the room [11:54:59] Marco discussing slide 12 [11:57:36] Marco finished presentation [11:57:45] Now Rajeev is commenting [11:59:10] Rajeev: WG adoption call for Local RO PS draft [11:59:33] raising my hand to adopt the document as a wg item [12:00:03] 12 hands for (+1 for Jari) [12:00:36] Rajeev : skip solution presentations [12:00:56] Jouni http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/netext-1.ppt [12:01:12] slide 2 [12:01:29] PJS200 leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [12:01:45] PJS200 joins the room [12:01:58] Slide 3 [12:02:51] Ralph Droms joins the room [12:03:44] slide 4 [12:07:04] discussion on slide 5 [12:08:11] Rajeev thinks PBU exchange between LMAs should not be in scope [12:12:27] Jouni agrees [12:13:07] JM says this is IKEv2 renegotiation [12:13:44] Jouni thinks no [12:14:10] In this solution, does the MAG have to send a PBU to the r2LMA before sending data? If no, i think it is important to define the message between the LMA [12:15:29] Lei Zhu on mic [12:17:31] Rajeev: is there an inter-LMA protocol? [12:17:41] Jouni: no [12:17:52] So the discussion restarts [12:20:03] Raj: let's go to the list to resolve the issues [12:20:37] AdrianFarrel leaves the room [12:21:19] Slide 6 [12:21:51] Raj: we have questions to be resolved so let's not decide on WG adoption [12:23:29] zhu says there is another solution draft [12:23:49] Raj 10 people for 4 people against the call [12:24:29] Raj: we will go to the list [12:25:31] Jouni presenting bulk registration [12:25:42] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/netext-5.ppt [12:25:55] slide 3 [12:27:14] slide 4 [12:27:21] slide 5 [12:28:00] there is a different id very similar to this [12:28:34] Alper on mic [12:34:08] Discussion on group id concept [12:35:54] Kent: different use cases for group id [12:38:35] Ryuji: group id has to be managed [12:38:54] and this brings overhead [12:39:47] Rajeev let's take further discussion to the list [12:40:27] Raj: we need to discuss Sri's id [12:40:50] Raj asked WG adoption to the floor [12:41:11] 4 people for it [12:41:28] Sri on group id [12:41:45] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/netext-12.ppt [12:42:22] sureshk joins the room [12:42:36] slide 2 [12:43:32] slide 3 [12:44:04] slide 4 [12:44:11] HeikkiMahkonen leaves the room [12:45:20] Alper: you said LMA would assign [12:45:29] Could MAG assign too? [12:45:33] Sri: yes [12:45:53] Big line up on mic [12:46:26] Sri: sub-type field is the key [12:47:08] Ryuji: group id MN anchored by same MAG? [12:47:32] Sri: if LMA assigns then they could be different scope [12:50:11] Jouni: LMA assigns id but scope by MAG or LMA is unclear [12:50:39] JanMelen leaves the room [12:52:30] Rajeev let's go to the list and clarify [12:53:48] Tunnel negotiation Yokota http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/netext-7.ppt [12:55:03] already slide 6 [12:55:53] Jouni: slide 5 [12:57:38] amuhanna joins the room [12:58:25] Sri is commenting also [12:59:37] Suresh: this draft is making it possible to use a new tunneling technique [13:00:10] Raj: do we really need selectability in the current context [13:00:34] It is already 3pm [13:01:46] Rajeev : let's take it to the list [13:03:28] behcet.sarikaya leaves the room [13:04:00] amuhanna leaves the room [13:04:01] fomula leaves the room [13:05:05] PJS200 leaves the room [13:05:06] rababy leaves the room: Computer went to sleep [13:09:45] Ralph Droms leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [13:09:45] Ralph Droms joins the room [13:10:26] sureshk leaves the room [13:16:00] Ralph Droms leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [13:16:00] Ralph Droms joins the room [13:16:34] Ralph Droms leaves the room [13:16:53] Yoshi leaves the room [13:17:37] jariarkko leaves the room [13:18:03] rababy joins the room [13:19:07] rababy leaves the room [13:19:13] Desire leaves the room [13:22:54] Alex.Petrescu leaves the room