[17:11:16] marco.liebsch joins the room [17:11:31] marco.liebsch leaves the room [19:25:00] brian.bnsmith joins the room [19:36:34] behcet.sarikaya joins the room [20:02:36] amuhanna joins the room [20:04:01] JuanCarlos joins the room [20:04:21] Raj agenda slides [20:04:40] http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/77/slides/netext-0.pptx [20:04:40] ryuji@Anaheim joins the room [20:05:17] WG status slide [20:05:50] Now an updated charter [20:06:25] WG status (slide 5) [20:07:33] Jouni on Runtime LMA [20:07:48] http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/77/slides/netext-1.ppt [20:08:12] Slide 3 changes [20:11:15] Next steps slide [20:11:46] Raj: maybe go for WGLC but we need reviews [20:12:57] Suresh, Jonne volunteer for review [20:13:12] @Suresh volunteer for Jabber scribe? [20:13:35] Fuad on Bulk rereg [20:13:52] http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/77/slides/netext-2.ppt [20:14:19] slide 2 [20:15:08] Slide 3 [20:15:48] Slide 4 [20:17:04] satoru.matsushima joins the room [20:17:04] Next steps slide [20:18:36] Raj: please review the draft, a tracker will be created [20:18:59] marco.liebsch joins the room [20:19:10] marco.liebsch leaves the room [20:19:11] Frank on Radius for PMIPv6 [20:19:25] http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/77/slides/netext-3.ppt [20:19:27] marco.liebsch joins the room [20:19:33] This came from netlmm [20:19:52] Slide 2 [20:20:00] can not hear Frank [20:21:25] @Ahmad, it is OK now? [20:21:29] better [20:21:31] thx [20:21:32] tomine joins the room [20:21:58] Slide 3 [20:22:53] Slide 4 [20:23:51] Alper: have you looked at WiMAX attributes? [20:23:56] Frank: yes [20:24:13] Raj: any objections? [20:24:20] There are none [20:24:29] Juergen joins the room [20:24:35] RAJ: take it as WG document as baseline [20:24:43] Suresh on LR [20:25:45] Presentation not online yet [20:26:37] Slide 2 on background [20:27:10] not intended to be a complete solution [20:27:29] Scenario A11 slide [20:28:56] Scenario A21 slide [20:29:11] slides not on server yet [20:31:03] Slide 6 who initiates LR [20:31:53] slides have been sent to the mailing list. [20:32:41] can you send slides to the mailing list? [20:32:51] received, thx [20:34:05] Frank: considered to have fixed node as CN? [20:34:31] Rajeev: LMA has to have state [20:34:53] Kent: doesn't cover interdomain case? [20:34:59] Suresh: right [20:37:03] configuration on MAG is not sufficient, LMA needs to enforce [20:37:14] Jari: your design choices are correct [20:37:56] Litetime of bindings slide [20:40:20] Kent: explicit or implicit teardown? [20:40:29] Suresh: explicit [20:40:44] Scenario A22 slide [20:41:17] Open the question to the room [20:41:28] It is in PS spec [20:42:03] Rajeev clarifies scenario [20:42:18] HUI joins the room [20:42:22] PS is not the argument. [20:42:26] Sri: keep it in the appendix [20:42:27] In A12, what happens if MN2 hands over to a different MAG? The protocol runs into an out of scope situation… [20:42:45] how to handle? [20:44:09] But the technical issue why to rule A22 out is really not clear [20:44:59] guys, A22 is not about handover between LMAs! [20:47:39] count my voice :-) [20:48:19] Rajeev is taking a poll [20:48:30] 5 for 10 against [20:48:39] including A22 [20:49:27] david.mark.jones joins the room [20:49:46] Rajeev: open to having another document for A22 [20:50:45] Raj: establish a tunnel between MAG1 and MAG2 issue [20:50:58] Rajeev: the other is handling handover [20:52:05] david.mark.jones leaves the room [20:52:57] Discussion on establishing the tunnel [20:53:08] dynamic setup or not [20:53:37] Raj: simplistic solution use configured tunnel [20:54:20] Raj: asking dynamic or configured tunnel? [20:54:47] Qin is for dynamic [20:55:04] This is a mobility group, nodes move, right? You want NetExt solution for LR for stationary nodes? [20:55:38] Kent: static is just type you still need forwarding [20:57:10] do it as discussed for RFC5213, the first LR state on the MAG sets up the tunnel. [20:57:39] Agree to Kent, tunnel is different to LR states on the MAG [20:59:32] Rajeev: packet loss is an issue [21:00:11] Rajeev: PFMIP will work for inter MAG communication [21:02:45] I AGREE with Kent; this is an ISSUE. [21:02:57] that needs to be addressed. [21:03:37] Raj: identify this as an issue [21:04:17] Sri is right [21:05:00] Raj: Suresh is editor of the document [21:05:17] idea is to adopt it as WG draft [21:05:34] Flow mobility discussion starts [21:05:49] Telemaco on logical interface [21:06:06] http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/77/slides/netext-4.ppt [21:06:30] Slide 2 NETEXT charter [21:07:00] Slide 4 [21:07:36] Slide 5 [21:09:10] implementation specific mechanisms for logical IF implementation [21:09:33] Frank: is it logical or virtual IF? [21:11:15] Rajeev: logical if is used because virtual if is a way to implement it [21:11:40] Slide 6 [21:13:11] Sri: there is another presentation it will clarify things [21:14:48] tomine leaves the room [21:17:01] simultaneous attachment is being considered [21:17:46] Next steps slide [21:17:57] Julien at mic [21:19:55] HUI leaves the room [21:20:16] Julien: MTU, NUD, etc. should be discussed [21:20:35] Julien: applies to any solution [21:21:33] Jari: it should talk about what are the expectations, MTUs, etc [21:22:55] Sri: here we are defining MN-AR interface [21:23:52] Juergen leaves the room [21:25:09] Jari: how are we hiding things from MN? [21:26:01] Rajeev: concept is to hide physical interface [21:29:37] discussion hiding issue [21:30:11] picture on Slide 6 is confusing [21:31:02] Raj: there is some work to be done, authors should take all the input and rev the document [21:31:25] not get into solution issue [21:31:47] Yuri at mic [21:32:05] why we need two documents [21:32:40] Rajeev: this doc is just an analysis doc and we need a solution document [21:33:13] Julien: we are not chatered to develop a new mechanism [21:35:41] Yokota on virtual interface [21:35:59] http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/77/slides/netext-5.ppt [21:36:16] slide 2 [21:37:07] slide 3 [21:37:40] application sees only virtual IF [21:38:27] Slide 4 [21:39:19] ryuji@Anaheim leaves the room [21:40:33] slide 5 [21:41:09] slide 7 [21:42:22] slide 8 [21:42:31] focus is on host side [21:43:12] Yuri at mic [21:43:22] Slide 4 [21:44:34] source address selection is not addressed here [21:44:55] Dapeng at mic [21:45:29] vif below IP layer, you should control routing table [21:45:41] Yokota: maybe 2.9 layer [21:45:47] laughs [21:47:03] Dapeng: you need to change application layer? [21:47:06] No [21:47:28] Jung-yeon at mic [21:47:50] Julien at mic [21:48:15] Julien is clarifying the charter [21:49:40] Jari is clarfying what needs to be done [21:49:58] current focus on what part [21:50:09] missing conceptual part [21:50:16] describe the idea [21:50:42] it should be made more abstract [21:53:05] explain VIF concept, assumptions on lower layer, IP layer like MTU [21:53:34] You are just describing one design [21:54:02] Telemaco: we understand your point [21:54:17] Julien agrees with Jari [21:55:40] Sri: we need to explain in detail [21:55:52] Jari: you need some level of detail [21:57:03] Yong-Geun at mic [21:57:12] satoru.matsushima leaves the room [21:57:35] Raj: you're looking at solution centric way [21:58:30] http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/77/slides/netext-6.ppt [21:58:43] Rajeev is explaining only the last slide [21:58:50] way forward [21:59:08] signaling is limited to LMA and MAG [21:59:34] a common spec making use of all docs will be produced [21:59:47] target date June'10 [22:00:37] network is controlling how to move the flows [22:00:52] that is the only direction we should be looking [22:01:07] Raj and Rajeev are explaining this [22:01:28] meeting is adjourned [22:01:50] behcet.sarikaya leaves the room [22:02:08] marco.liebsch leaves the room [22:02:49] amuhanna leaves the room [22:15:04] JuanCarlos leaves the room [23:53:56] brian.bnsmith leaves the room