DRAFT Notes v1

 
** DMM track **
 
10:00       Title: Administrivia & Intro, WG organization & milestones
            Presenter: Chairs
            Slides: tbd
 
- Current status of the WG documents given by jouni
- Cleaning the remaining jobs is first. Then, more agenda or topics will be discussed.
 
10:15       Title: FPC update & Common FPC model
            Presenter: Marco / Satoru
            Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp
            Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-dmm-4.pdf
 
ML (Marco Liebsch) presented update of FPC draft.
LB (Lyle Bertz) presented detailed examples of the evolved data model with JSON examples including common data based on Figure 15 in -03 version.
 
DL (Dapeng Liu): any security consideration?
LB: currently focusing on conceptual operation in this draft.
JK (Jouni Korhonen): would it be enough to go WGLC?
LB: yes, since there has no objection, I think it will be complete to go WGLC with v4.
SK (Suresh Krishnan): Keep your eyes on implementation status in other WGs, such as YANG model and NETCONF as well.
LB: we'll try to do.
AP (Alex Petrescu): YANG model is more important throughout IETF. Before going to YANG model, is there any relationship between PMIPv6 signaling and YANG model, as the given message sequence includes PMIPv6 signaling.
SG (Sri Gundavelli): Mobility signaling belongs to the control plane. PMIP is not replaced by YANG model, which is about data plane configuration.
JK: excited to see version 4 draft.
 
 
10:40       Title: On Demand Mobility Management - update
            Presenter: Danny
            Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility
            Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-dmm-0.pptx
 
DM (Danny Moses) presented brief update about current progresses in this WT.
 
Related work currently going or expected to go
1) on-demand mobility management draft on WGLC
2) use cases for source IP address selection study
3) DHCPv6 extensions for on-demand address type exposure
 
SK: Check RFC 3633 format for DHCPv6, and try to identify any missing place to go for on-demand mobility properties. Then, you may try to do.
 
4) stateless IP address support - not started
 
DM: I'll check the prefix property draft, trying to identify some gaps to support the on-demand mobility properties.
JK: How mobility specific option would look like? Check.
 
5) link state change exposure
 
DM: exposing link state or event to applications through socket interface is needed.
JK: IETF has a RFC.
DM: It was written by Alper, describing data link socket use, not about indicating lower-level events to applications
DM: application such as SIP-based would need what happening in lower-level ... for re-registration stuff...
SK: we need to be careful what to guide.. 
 
JK: Regarding the on-demand WG draft, I went through 07 version. I'm not going to initiate WGLC again. We'll wait IESG evaluation.
 
11:05       Title: Distributed Mobility Anchoring - update
            Presenter: Anthony
            Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring
            Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-dmm-2.pptx
 
AC presented the draft, with example solutions; 
- mobility support not needed: change to anchor in new network
- move IP anchoring to new network
 
SG: Check terminology in consistency with other WG drafts.
AC: Yes, it has been addressed in 07 version.
 
AP: It looks very promising. Relating with DHC WG, "forwarding table update" in the move IP procedure in the presentation, some discussion is being done in DHC WG. there is some discussion in the WG. Check this, please.
AC: We'll have a look.
SK: The mentioned issue is not applied in this case.
AP: DHC WG is tallking about the AR, specifically AR relay.
IF (Ian Farrer): ?
AC: Do you mean this issue in the separation of control-plane and data-plane environment? In the separated environment, we are assuming the use of BGP, injecting relevant information from the control-plane entity to the data-plane entity.
 
DL: FPC model is also considered in your solution?
AC: Yes, it is included.
 
** MIP maintenance track **
 
11:30      Title: RFC4283bis
           Presenter: Charlie
           Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids
           Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-dmm-3.pdf
 
CP (Charlie Perkins) presented update of RFC4283bis document.
 
11:40       Title: Other DMM WG Administrivia
            - new I-Ds
               * draft-wt-dmm-deployment-models
               * draft-chan-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring
            - WG next steps
 
JK: We have two drafts on the table.
JK: Who has read chan's latest draft? 10 more or less people
JK: We'll try to run this poll in the list, for adoption call of this draft.
 
JK: Who has read sri's latest draft? 
JK: We'll try to run this poll in the list, for adoption call of this draft.
JK: Who think this should be adopted as a wg item? 6 or 7 people
 
JK: Who is willing to contribute to the draft review?
- Charlie, Anthony, Alex, Marco, Danny, Carlos, Sri, Seil
 
JK: What's next?
JK: We still got few I-Ds lingering in the WG that are about to be moved to IESG ... that's mostly a process thing.
 
CP: Hope to be included with GTP in the current on-going job, specifically in FPC document.
LB: We need more some review efforts from folks.
 
JK: anything *new* to work on that is missing? or recharter?
- mobility for IoT?
- mobility for VM/DC/Cloud?
- mobility for open source infrastructure?
- mobility for 5G?
- the question: is there a need/customer?
 
SK: AD hat on. i want the all items gone first. This seems not the proper time to discuss for it.
JK: Your definition of cleaning the table is all draft heading out.
SG: I agree on Suresh's opinion.
SK: if needed, the chairs need to put some additional items in the milestone.. then I will check and confirm. Or , No.
ML: Agreed on the AD's idea to avoid inactive review effort on the remaining tasks. Besides, DMM WG is a perfect place to talk mobility for those given examples such as IoT, VM, 5G. There are customers enough having interest in those jobs.
SK: After the remaining jobs gone , let's start other topics discussion. 
DL: Agreed on the AD's opinion. After the current milestones are cleaned, I'll trigger for new topics discussion in the list.
SK: For future jobs, we can think of liaison with 3GPP.
SG: Liaison with 3GPP is a very good idea.
 
12:30       Adjourn