Agenda for Monami6 meeting, IETF69 Chicago, Il, USA Wednesday, July 25 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Grand Ballroom Chairs: Thierry Ernst, Nicolas Montavont Minutes taker: Chan-Wah NG and Nicolas Chevrollier ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AGENDA 1. Welcome, agenda bashing, WG documents status................... 10 minutes Chairs 2. MEXT charter discussion........................................ 15 minutes Chairs 3. Finalizing Motivations & Scenarios before WGLC ................ 15 minutes Thierry Ernst http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-02.txt 4. Finalizing MIP6 Problem Statement before WGLC ................. 15 minutes Thierry Ernst http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-03.txt 5. Finalizing MCOA Solution ..................................... 15 minutes Ryuji Wakikawa http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-03.txt 6. Next steps ................................................... 15 minutes Chairs draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt draft-larsson-monami6-filter-rules-02.txt draft-mitsuya-monami6-flow-distribution-policy-03.txt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MINUTES HS is Hesham Soliman NM is Nicolas Montavont JA is Jari Arkko TE is Thierry Ernst HL is Henrik Levkowetz RW is Ryuji Wakikawa SG is Sri Gundavelli GT is Georges Tsirsis Raj is Raj (?) KA is Keigo Aso ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ** Welcome / agenda bashing ** No comment ** Monami6 to MExt ** HS: Milestone are too long in dates, there are documents for most of these already. NM: It does not necessary means that we must wait til then JA: That's right, you can send them in. JA: We adjust the dates since Mext, a lot of people will be working on different work items - Clarification for Charter JA: was there a change from Monam6 to Mext? NM: Yes JA: We wanted a clean up when we merge the charter. What you are proposing here is borderline case. Similar to other efforts in the IETF. Now that the IESG has approved the charter, it might not be possible to add substantial changes. NM: I think the changes I propose are mostly editorial. JA: I am ok with the things you are proposing ... but we should not go too much towards multiple home addresses. TE: I don't think it's controversial. JA: I would need some time to look at the changes you proposed to make sure it is not too much towards things like multi-homed between multiple home addresses. -- subtopic: proposed changes for milestone 4 in charter -- JA: Is the proposed change really how the HA switch would work? JA: I agree with the other changes (except HA switch part). ** Finalizing Motivations & Scenarios before WGLC ** TE: Section 6: Is the list complete? -- Next Steps: TE: Is everyone happy with this draft? TE: How many read the draft? around 10. TE: we need more comments. HL: Maybe some comments later ** Finalizing MIP6 Problem Statement before WGLC ** -- Open Points TE: How many people ha dread the draft? about 7~8 RW: we shouldn't deal with HA addresses. I don't see any specific problem NM: what happen if HA is multihomed? RW: It maybe useful to have some text, but i see no issues HS: The home agent is always multihomed. RW: Not necessary, can operate with one single interface HS: there is also logical interface ** Finalizing MCOA Solution ** -- H flag for BID sub-option SG: why is it so important to support this scenario? RW: voice on the mailing list SG: Ok but what is the use case? TE: Please refer to the scenario document (multi ISPs at home) RW: This is not mandatory. JA: On the slide, you point to a non-normative document (no-ndp) ? RW: (Only in the slide, not in the mcoa draft. There is many application for No-NDP. (summarize case where proxy nd is not used) JA: If you actually need this feature, you may incur delay. Please explore some other way to support this. HS: I am trying to figure out how if the MN is at home, you are assuming the H-flag is not bind to the tunnel, but to home interface. how this would work with the flow flinding? RW: I haven't looked at this problem HS: doesn't bind to the tunnel but the interface? Must not to intercept packet? did you look if multi routers on the link? RW: No, must not use NDProxy to intercept. It must still intercept. xxxx implementation detail could maybe solved the pb. don't do ND proxy... TE: please comments to the document on the ML, is it usefull or not? GT: Why is the home CoA solution rejected? RW: We didn't actually reject it, but HomeCoA requires more changes. GT: I think homeCoA is a much cleaner at higher layer Raj: Its not obvious to me we need extension. It's HA implementation. KA: On flow bidning, home interface can have BID as well. So no influence on flow filtering RW: D we need to support this scenario? TE: This issue is documented in the analysis draft. -- Binding Revocation -- Next Step TE: We need to look at the result of the LC on the 2 informational WG documents before deciding on issuing WGLC on this one ** Next steps ** NM: Can we confirm the consensus issued at the last IETF to adopt draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt as a WG document for the 4th deliverable? vote against -> none NM: We are looking forward for potential candidate for flow filters definition. As for now, we have draft-larsson-monami6-filter-rules-02.txt draft-mitsuya-monami6-flow-distribution-policy-03.txt other candidate? HS: where is optimum format for defining a flow: FID, DiffServ Codepoints, etc? It is worth discussing additional formats HL: If we can find one, that's fine. But the goal is not to re-engineer. I think BF is good, but if there is other candidate, we should look at it? GT: What's the split titles? NM: we agreed on having a "generic" draft for the format. what do the filters look like? HS: we just need to finalize the actual format being used RW: we have a similar document from kochiro, we can contribute on it NM: I thought you had both format and transport in your draft? RW: we can alwasy remove the transport part of the draft and resubmit NM: OK