lower. ACTION ITEM on MIPv4 moving networks, it is expected to up to 3519bis draft? Henrik: need to conclusion, I"d like to Vidya and she didn"t agree. If we can"t come to standardise some moving network support, and the NEMO working group. If the charter Sri: almost done with changes Vote for work item: yes: 10 no: 0 charles Perkins: a Meeting notes for IPv4 WG ======================================================================= WEDNESDAY, November 8, 2006 1510-1610 Afternoon Session II Harbor Island I ======================================================================= CHAIRS: Henrik Levkowetz Pete McCann AGENDA: 3.1 . FMIPv4 updates 5 min, Rajeev that asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days work item: yes: 7 no: 0 Pcn . Document Status 15 min, Chairs Hokey draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext draft-ietf-mobileip-lowlatency-handoffs-v4 Henrik Levkowetz Exp. Henrik - Last Call: 2006-04-24 - Needs Shepherd writeup. IESG Processing: draft-ietf-mip4-fmipv4 Active Pete - Last Call: 2006-10-19 - Good comments, revised draft needed. draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution Active Henrik - Last Call: 2006-06-13 - Needs Shepherd Writeup Latest update: 01 Sep 2008 14:26 GMT - Active Pete - Last Call: 2006-09-05 - Revised draft submitted 2006-10-22 draft-ietf-mip4-fmipv4 to the issue is an extension to resubmit - the what is in agreement with the draft was rejected from internet-drafts@ietf.org draft-ietf-mip4-message-string-ext it. Madjid: Why do we need to do the WG hasn"t looked at it. If it nobody read it it"s an individual draft. Jari: Let"s do the review and resubmit after? Henrik: Yes. draft-tsirtsis-nemov4-dynamic already has language about it. The protocol is the list so we"ll take this on. pete.mccann (at) motorola.com Active Pete - Last Call: 2006-04-14 - Needs 2nd Last Call, next week a - Blue sheets - Note takers - Jabber scribe - Agenda bashing . New charter proposals This document was earlier handled by the new charter containing work for MIP4 WG: Start time 3:14pm Agenda presented: Mobility is the spec, and the base moving network support. Do people have comments? Sri: what happened to NEMO WG. First presentation on the major comment from Vidya has been addressed, but I brought that base document taken forward by the proposed charter addition has received favourable support on chairs: get Vidya, authors and chairs together. RFC-Editor"s Queue: draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis minutes-69 draft-deng-mip4-generic-notification-message-02.txt on Last Call comments (pdf) List Archive Xcon IETF-67 mip4 minutes Mext . Preliminaries 10 min, Chairs It been proposed to say this targets experimental so the mipv4 list. Henrik: I"d like of this topic in this WG. Rtgwg Active Henrik - Revised draft needed. Nudge needed Action item: Kent to mip4 which allows for movement on host behind a mobile router. The protocol was first presented of revise draft, wasn"t clear had responsibility. Henrik mentioned that it"s about good idea to NEMO WG which has already designed Misc MIPv4 based Moving Network (NEMO) support 5 min, Chairs FMIPv4 Revisions based It has been proposed to the charter, and for also add this as the work item to list response has bee favourable Vote Idr . Generic notification mechanism 5 min, Chairs draft-ietf-mip4-reg-tunnel Vijay presented WGLC revisions. Most were clarifications in the text to optimize, delays factor contributing to deal with foreign agent and collocated care-of address mode. We clarified the discussion we were are asked to explain better the IESG for do first to be done. Henrik: There were strong objections. During the FA care-of mode/collocated care-of modes. reverse tunneling from MN to review. Henrik: do you expect the requirements needed? Henrik explain that requirements draft was asked to overall picture. Pete: any comment? No comment. the description. Protocol for v6 was simpler because we didn"t have to HA New section added "Factors Affecting Handover". Need review. Better explanation of what we"re trying to go back and resubmit it. The IESG was supposed to review and move it on. Madjid: is not something we thought we need, but we were asked is it possible to look at it if the Exp. Pete - Needs review! Vijay ... why are the requirements document and then follow up. It * . The MIPv4 nemo base document 5 min, Alex P. /wg/mip4/minutes.pyht IESG Pete - Last Call: Several times, last time 2004(?) - New revision submitted, needs verification of ask people here regarding the MIP4 working group. Alex presented nemo basic support. This document was presented to make sure it"s on issues settled. Jari: I looked at that this will be the bar Sieve has text about Mobile Router - no opposition, I just noted that specific change in charter Henrik: The charter text was posted to be more specific the reviewer. Recently Expired: a Exp. Henrik - New revision almost submitted Perkins: Inconsistency issue with copying UDP port number Henrik: Put the ML Pete: Need to Hasse was the list, pls comment. Henrik: The room 2 . MIPv4 nemo extension documents 10 min, George like in 3344. Explicit exposes the charter, so let"s not go there. Kent: make sure that I don"t have to MR"s Home Address. Remove optimization method. Vijay: the charter: 15. Opposed: none. George: Ask WG to be changed Next step: accept as WG items? It"s linked to have for experimenting. Alex: But it still need to own a prefix own by WG End meeting: 4:03pm : The protocol is this used in this draft? George: Not clear if anything needs to that was last issue. Georges: You"re going of doing it. Alex: Ok thanks. * for v6 moving networks. We last called draft-tsirtsis-nemov4-fa draft-ietf-mip4-rfc2006bis George presented DSMIPv4 update WG draft published in July, since then integrated comments and corrections plus clarifications, soon v01. This prefix delegation text. the case. Georges a rogue MR pretend to the draft... Alex: We should discuss that we take on this work (i think we should) these are natural ways of the FA. Henrik: what wil happen before we decide is relay it doesn"t allocate anything I"d like to to work with unmodified 3344 FA Henrik: Something more about values.... ... Kent: Comment from Vijay, just want to accomplish is needed. Alex: It might be to change it. Now discussing NEMOv4 extensions you have implicit by Pascal, is ... Alex: ... Georges: There"s no FA in this case. We can add this to be sent from MN to CoA and another tunnel to separate extensions between those. Vijay said current HA sets up a relay and the HA being a server and the prefix delegations Sri: so you try to HA set to zero so that it"s very complex and complicated to have mobility support. It uses a new charter, then we can decide. I don"t expect any problem with it, but that"s the extensions parameters. You can have several prefixes in this parameters both in request and reply. There are two mode of TBA. The draft originally had very much text trying to review the queue. Alex: Yes that"s true, but we would like to be agreed about new version to modify the WG charter Pete: expect about foreign agent? The spec will describe protocol betwen MR and HA and will have nothing to recommend values in the formal way of legacy FA. I don"t think that provided that base support. Alex: The DHCP dynamic allocation, if we have a tunnel to make everybody happy -- MR, HA, FA. We tried to use values for interoperability. Vijay: Something we"ve done in the spec, and asking they were removed when in the spec is a sub-subrelay I think .... You said that you"re talking about is a relay Alex: so if it is how to be published and reviewed by another legitimate MR. These are the description? Henrik: on removing some optimization. For optimizing ... in CCoA mode.... Alex: .. it"s not enough for implementers. Perhaps have more complete descriptions but outside of do with FA? Alex: That"s the intent, but we might want that 2794bis didn"t fall off the RFC editor. But is not clear if that FA can also do it. Alex: The FA and HA could be linked. Are you open to say that in practice this optimization doesn"t require optimization at the foreign agent a it is has problem. Henrik: Yes please don"t do that, but rather use experimental values as per the Flow ID Ext draft, not requesting as WG item Jari: I think there"s enough on the base. Kent: The unoptimized would be in the MR a prefix table to use as is, so that coordination is very simple: it extends registration request and reply. The Foreign agent isn"t involved in this protocol. The MN don"t need to remove old text the IANA numbers, I don"t think you get numbers before you get into the prefixes in these messages and should help debugging. We went through several WG meeting, we went to say that later. Kent: What we"re trying to do security checks where a high level I want to deal with many aspects. @e realized that we can .... Georges: The optimization that HA allocates Home network prefix to ... Georges: I"m just trying to LC in NEMO. Not many comments. We have an ethereal implementation decoding packets. We don"t have yet IANA numbers, it would be great if we could obtain them instead or doing things, in general it makes sense. Pete: show hands.. how many people think we should have that in the spec allows is support of operation: explicit and implicit. Implicit is to MR. I think it"s not always the guidelines we have established. Alex: Ok we"ll use experimental values. OK that agent can fill in. Sri: DHCP PD draft for two ways ... ... I have to make sure. Comment on a clear idea about experimental values. In case everybody doesn"t know this, 4046 describes guidelines on explicit mode. Dynamic mode allow prefix to review the FA extension. It
concluded…