NetExt Working Group Meeting: IETF89

Chaired by Rajeev Koodli
 
WG Status Update
   Prefix delegation -- AUTH48
   PMIPv6-QoS draft-- AD will put it in IETF last call on Monday
   EAP attribute document-- WGLC
 
Comments on Prefix delegation:
Rajeev:  Pierrick suggested using UPN elements contained in  FMI and FMA. Consensus is that UPN may be considered but is not mandatory to be used for carrying FMI and FMA.  Desire a self-contained RFC
 
Consensus:  Flow mobility requirements will allow two implementation choices to be specified
   1) old, specification in previous versions of draft : FMI and FMA message formats
   2) new,  reference to RFC 7077 : define NR code for FMA
 
Brian (AD) comment: if you have two versions with no way of discovering which versions are supported, then other ADs will reject this.
Carlos: Should we add some capability negotiation to discover which method is supported. Will send it the mailing list for further comments.
 
No comments on QoS draft
 
 
Comments on ANI extensions
Alex: One or several entities have to connect to PMIP domain .. ANI contains civic address of one MN or several MN's
Rajesh: Civic Location identifies the location of the MAG (and not the MN)
 
Comments on Virtual Interface draft
Carlo: commenting that as Implementer of virtual interface, this is a useful document.
Rajeev:  Content of this draft is moot, since a number of implementations exist. Agrees with the comment from other chair (Raj).  Not clear whether there is much value and whether group has expertise to evaluate and provide guidance rather than confuse.  Recommend not pursue this work within the group.
Alex: Believes it is worthwhile to have a virtual interface document.
Marco: Agrees with chair comments, document specifies only one implementation. Why drop it now, given that the document is almost ready rather than 2 years ago.
Rajeev: No good reason for why decision is being made now. Maybe not the right group to identify issues related to ND or MTU handling.
Carlos: Does think Netext is the right place.
Brian (AD):  the WG consensus is needed to drop this and not just the chairs.
Brian (AD): We have gotten down a rat-hole here.  Pls send email to mailing list to assess working group consensus for this document.
Georgios: Agrees with suggestion to request comments from mailing list.
 
Roadmap
 
Rajeev: No new work to be taken at this time beyond QoS Draft, and 6757 Biz. For new ideas, form new charter and form a working group.
Brent: DMM Is writing requirements. Who is recipient of such requirements
Jouni: Requirements are complete. Protocol work is being done at
Brian:  Can add PMIPv6 extensions to DMM Charter. 
Rajesh: What does maintenance mean
Brian: The WG can decide what maintenance is and what is significant protocol work.
Charlie:  Can the logical interface document be taken up in DMM