Re: [MEXT] About the flow binding charter item

[George Tsirtsis <tsirtsis at googlemail.com>]

2009/5/20 Thierry Ernst <thierry.ernst at inria.fr>:
> Dear Marcelo,
>
> Let me reply since this part of the MEXT charter was taken from MonAmi6
> charter which Nicolas and I wrote with the help of other people (including
> ADs).
>>
>>
>> There seems to be some discrepancies about the MEXT charter item
>> regarding the work on flow bindings.
>> Since the charter is the guide for our work, it would be important to
>> clarify it, so we can have a unified interpretation of the charter.
>> Please note that what it is in the charter is not cast in stone, but
>> it seems to reflect previous consensus and we need good reasons to
>> change it.
>>
>> So, the current charter item about flow bindings reads:
>>
>> - A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for an exchange of
>> policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from the
>> Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the
>> Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The solution involves two
>> specifications, one for the policy format and another for its
>> transport [both Standard Track].
>>
>> The first problem with this text is the use and interpretation of the
>> word policy. Since the policy word may have a broad interpretation.
>> it would be important to make the charter more explicit about the
>> expected work. We understand that it is the WG consensus that what
>> need to be exchanged is a solution for the exchange of flow binding
>> rules.
>>
>> So, we understand that it would be more explicit to replace the usage
>> of the expression Flow/binding policies exchange by Flow Binding
>> rules exchange. Would that reflect with the WG interpretation?
>
> Yes.
> At the time there was no controversy when using the former wording.
>>
>> Second, the current charter item explicitly mentions that the
>> proposed approach must support sending flow binding information from
>> the MN to the HA and also from the HA to the MN. Moreover, the
>> current charter talks about influencing not only the selection of the
>> CoA but also the selection of the HA address. However, our current WG
>> document does not supports sending information from the HA and it
>> does not cover the possibility of influencing the HA address. So, one
>> possible interpretation of the charter would be that the MN sends
>> flow binding information to influence the CoA selection and the HA
>> sends flow binding information to influence the HA address selection.
>> Other interpretation is that both the MN and the HA send information
>> regarding both the HA address and the CoA selection.
>>
>> So, we would like that the WG express their opinion on both items
>> mentioned above:
>>
>> 1- whether we should replace Flow/binding policies exchange by Flow
>> Binding rules exchange in the charter
>
> Yes.
>>
>> 2- whether the information should be sent from the MN to the HA only
>> or it should also be sent from the HA to the MN and if the
>> information exchanged in each direction should affect the CoA and/or
>> the HA address.
>
> I would recommend to rephrase the question in 2.a and 2.b
>
> 2.a.: Unidirectional exchange or bidirectional ?
>
> In MonAmi6 times, we definitely wanted to have a bidirectional exchange of
> rules and I think we should stick to it. It will be required in some usage
> scenarios.
>

GT> What scenarios are you referring to? All the practical scenarios I
am aware of use broad guidelines from the network to the end node
(802.21, ANDSF etc) and they do not try to micromanage the MN. I
thought this became part of MIPSHOP.


> 2.b. Affect CoA only, and/or HA address ?
>

GT> Could someone elaborate on the "HA address" part? what is this all about?

>
> and we wanted to influence the choice of the HoA too though this was not
> agreed for setting up MonAmi6 as a group so this was rephrased and HA
> address appeared instead, as a compromise. I wish we keep the possibility to
> influence the choice of the HA address.
>
> Now, this said, the current drafts may or may not address all of these (they
> may not if this would bring them to square one as we need these draft to be
> published), but these shall be kept in the charter, definitely.
>
> Regards,
> Thierry
>>
>> Regards, Julien and marcelo
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>
>