[11:53:52] --- bnsmith has joined
[11:56:51] --- petrescu7 has joined
[12:00:17] <petrescu7> slides seem to be on page https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=67 then
[12:01:18] <petrescu7> search for 16ng and find "Agenda", "PS and Goal", "IPv6 Link Model Analysis", "IPv6 over IPv6CS", "IP over EthernetCS", "IPv4 over IPv4CS"
[12:03:40] <petrescu7> Soohong Daniel Park starts meeting
[12:03:45] <petrescu7> slide: Preliminaries
[12:04:00] <petrescu7> ben smith? are you supposed to take notes?
[12:04:31] <petrescu7> I'll take notes
[12:04:33] --- yowada has joined
[12:04:33] --- ks has joined
[12:04:45] <petrescu7> slide: Agenda (1/3)
[12:04:45] --- sarikaya has joined
[12:05:14] <bnsmith> are you talking to me? Brian Smith
[12:05:34] <petrescu7> sorry, yes, Brian Smith... so I'll take notes, I'm Alex Petrescu.
[12:05:56] <petrescu7> slide: Agenda (2/3)
[12:06:05] <bnsmith> I am in Canada, listening :-)
[12:06:51] <petrescu7> great, I hope you find jabber noting useful, let me know if you need different style or whatever.
[12:07:01] <petrescu7> slide: Agenda (3/3)
[12:07:28] <petrescu7> slide: What happened form 66-IETF (1/2)
[12:08:25] --- jasso1 has joined
[12:09:22] <petrescu7> slide: What happened from 66-IETF (2/2)
[12:10:15] <petrescu7> slide: Milestone (1/2)
[12:10:22] <petrescu7> slide: Milestone (2/2)
[12:10:26] <petrescu7> slide: Interim Meeting
[12:13:02] <petrescu7> David Johnston DJ presents
[12:13:27] <petrescu7> slide: 802.16 Liaison Report
[12:13:38] <petrescu7> slide: Current Standards
[12:14:42] <petrescu7> slide: Work in Progress
[12:15:22] <petrescu7> Gabriel Montenegro
[12:15:27] <petrescu7> GM heard rumors about g and...
[12:15:37] <petrescu7> GM: targeted date for completion for... GPCS
[12:15:46] <petrescu7> DJ: possible not what happened to date
[12:15:51] <petrescu7> DJ: tested several times
[12:15:58] <petrescu7> DJ: remove this, we don't want this in this spec
[12:16:13] <petrescu7> DJ: revision standards, going to have to come sooner or later, probably next year
[12:16:24] <petrescu7> DJ: some people suggested moving it into that revision make everybody happy
[12:16:33] <petrescu7> DJ: not any kind of plan at this point, just speculation
[12:16:37] <petrescu7> Raj Patil
[12:16:55] <petrescu7> RP: on previous slide, this coexistence, fixed and mobile? what coexistence?
[12:16:59] <petrescu7> DJ: a spec
[12:17:07] <petrescu7> DJ: RF parameters in certain license bands
[12:17:10] <petrescu7> DJ: not my area
[12:17:13] <bnsmith> is this presentation on line?
[12:17:18] <petrescu7> slide: Work in Progress
[12:17:32] <petrescu7> I think not, unfortunately
[12:18:01] <petrescu7> check that URL at the beginning I've posted. If it's not there then it isn't, I believe. Check also the 16ng mailing list, they may have posted other url
[12:18:17] --- nm has joined
[12:18:58] <petrescu7> slide: 802.16i
[12:19:20] <petrescu7> slide: 802.16g
[12:20:11] <petrescu7> slide: 802.16k
[12:20:32] <petrescu7> slide: Coriggendum 2
[12:20:38] <petrescu7> Corrigendum
[12:21:08] <petrescu7> slide: Meetinfs
[12:21:10] <petrescu7> Meetings
[12:21:39] <petrescu7> slide: Documents
[12:21:49] <petrescu7> www.ieee80216.org/16
[12:22:08] <petrescu7> Contact David Johnston david.johnston@ieee.org
[12:22:25] <petrescu7> user: (elided)
[12:22:29] <petrescu7> pass: (elided)
[12:22:37] <petrescu7> for IETF
[12:23:10] <bnsmith> ican we get this posted please
[12:23:24] <petrescu7> what?
[12:23:40] <bnsmith> cannot find the last presentation
[12:23:54] <bnsmith> Liason report
[12:24:06] <petrescu7> I've just asked Chairs they said "not yet" but soon
[12:24:16] <bnsmith> thanks
[12:24:20] <petrescu7> slide: IP over 802.16 Problem Statement and Goals
[12:24:35] <petrescu7> Soohong Daniel Park speaking SDP
[12:24:51] <petrescu7> SDP: how many people read the document
[12:24:54] <petrescu7> SDP: like 10
[12:25:21] <petrescu7> slide: Document Status
[12:25:54] <petrescu7> slide: What next
[12:26:55] <petrescu7> SDP: any questions comments
[12:27:07] <petrescu7> Dave Thaler going to present
[12:28:00] <petrescu7> slide: Link Model Analysis for 802.16 based Networks
[12:28:38] <petrescu7> slide: Goal
[12:29:39] <petrescu7> slide: Link Models Considered
[12:30:19] <petrescu7> slide: NBMA Link Model
[12:31:30] <petrescu7> slide: Point-to-point Link Model
[12:32:04] --- nm has left: Replaced by new connection
[12:32:04] --- nm has joined
[12:32:04] --- nm has left
[12:32:43] <petrescu7> slide: Ethernet-like Link Model
[12:33:04] <petrescu7> DJ approaching
[12:33:17] <petrescu7> DJ: doesn't fit my understanding of .16
[12:33:44] <petrescu7> DJ: services are at BS the MS, .16 doesn't provide any description of how data passes from MS to MS (SS to SS more correctly)
[12:33:53] <petrescu7> DT: no in this case data
[12:34:00] <petrescu7> DJ: bridge, a separate port for every MS
[12:34:07] <petrescu7> DT: my slide
[12:34:12] <petrescu7> DT: base station
[12:34:20] <petrescu7> DJ: not consistent with the way bridging
[12:34:28] <petrescu7> DJ: each MS presents a separate link to
[12:34:39] <petrescu7> Max Riegel
[12:34:44] <petrescu7> MR: separate link for each MS
[12:35:12] <petrescu7> slide: Dormancy
[12:35:55] --- kakima has joined
[12:35:55] --- kakima has left
[12:36:33] <petrescu7> slide: Limiting mnulticast/broadcast traffic
[12:38:36] --- nm has joined
[12:40:57] <petrescu7> slide: Short Summary of IGMP/MLD Snooping
[12:41:27] <bnsmith> all right, where are these slides :-)
[12:42:26] <petrescu7> heh, I don't know. Those are last minute changes to agenda I believe...
[12:43:00] <bnsmith> need a webcam
[12:43:13] <petrescu7> got one in my room... but only over skype
[12:43:35] <petrescu7> slide: Documentation/implementation status
[12:44:52] <petrescu7> MAx Riegel
[12:45:01] <petrescu7> MR: two questions
[12:45:12] <petrescu7> MR: ND sent to solicitated node multicast addresses
[12:45:20] <petrescu7> MR: how by MLD? couldn't find text so far
[12:45:31] <petrescu7> DT: the statement in rfc27 something
[12:45:46] <petrescu7> DT: they must be sent to any other group than all-hosts multicast
[12:46:04] <petrescu7> MR: initnial phase of host attached to network
[12:46:08] <petrescu7> MR: timing
[12:46:18] <petrescu7> DT: DAD traffic
[12:46:24] <petrescu7> DT: so q is about ordering of events?
[12:46:29] <petrescu7> DT: certain things in parallel
[12:46:36] <petrescu7> DT: have to join the group before getting NS
[12:46:45] <petrescu7> DT: report has to come out prior join...
[12:46:57] <petrescu7> DT: DAD could be done in parallel with joining the group
[12:47:11] <petrescu7> DT: has to happen before transitioning in complete DAD
[12:47:17] <petrescu7> DT: prior to completion to DAD
[12:47:22] <petrescu7> MR: we must look into issues these
[12:47:32] <petrescu7> MR: maybe MLD snooping was not designed for wireless area
[12:47:45] <petrescu7> MR: some issues (in some models of network) risk of DoS
[12:48:01] <petrescu7> MR: better a more precise limiting filtering of messages going over the aqir
[12:48:08] <petrescu7> MR: fitting solving a lot of problems
[12:48:15] <petrescu7> DT: that's what WG needs to investigate
[12:48:27] <petrescu7> Myunk-Ki Shin approaching
[12:48:36] <petrescu7> Myung-Ki Shin
[12:48:47] <petrescu7> MKS: this is not DT original discussion
[12:49:01] <petrescu7> MKS: especially the recommendation of MLD snooping (other than snooping)
[12:49:06] <petrescu7> MKS: should discuss more in DT
[12:49:11] <petrescu7> DT: thought DT concluded
[12:49:19] <petrescu7> MKS: kind of MLD and snooping
[12:49:34] <petrescu7> MKS: couldn't conclude opn the kind of spec of DT (Design Team)
[12:50:02] --- kakima has joined
[12:50:05] <petrescu7> SDP: we will investigate these issues in DT (Design Team)
[12:50:09] <petrescu7> Jari Arkko
[12:50:16] <petrescu7> JA: answer to vulnerabilities
[12:50:25] <petrescu7> JA: distinciton between things in link model and protocol
[12:50:31] <petrescu7> JA: and things operators can do, firewalls
[12:50:54] <petrescu7> DT: sniffing stuff
[12:51:15] <petrescu7> Ronen Solomon
[12:51:28] <petrescu7> RS: also looking into proxy summarization? to reduce number of reports
[12:51:33] <petrescu7> RS: why focus on snooping?
[12:51:50] <petrescu7> DT: what you talk about is potentially good but not addressing the specific problem we require interaction on the MS side
[12:52:05] <petrescu7> RS: I recommend look on proxy stadradization as well
[12:52:09] <petrescu7> DT: not in link model analysis
[12:52:21] <petrescu7> slide: Model Recommendations
[12:52:41] <petrescu7> DJ approaching
[12:53:08] <petrescu7> DJ: term IPv6 CS - I dispute such thing exists
[12:53:21] <petrescu7> DJ: CS is already ATMCS and packet CS
[12:53:28] <petrescu7> DJ: packet CS has an IP specific subpart
[12:53:37] <petrescu7> DJ: q
[12:53:46] <petrescu7> DJ: any further specific classification...
[12:53:55] <petrescu7> DJ: CS itself is not
[12:54:06] <petrescu7> DJ: there are classification that don't decide what your trafifc is
[12:54:10] <petrescu7> DT: terminology?
[12:54:22] <petrescu7> DJ: packet CS (IP specific subpart with IPv6 classifier)
[12:54:31] <petrescu7> DJ: a number of further options there are
[12:54:55] <petrescu7> SDP approaching Soohong Daniel Park
[12:55:12] <petrescu7> SDP: we have relevant discussion on mailing list, we need more indepth discussion in terms of terminology
[12:55:12] --- alfredprasad has joined
[12:55:29] <petrescu7> SDP: need more work of what IP CS and IPv6 CS is terminology discussion, please comment
[12:55:37] <petrescu7> DT: is a big fan terminology is ...
[12:55:54] <petrescu7> slide: Current Status
[12:56:15] <petrescu7> Behcet Sarikaya
[12:56:28] <petrescu7> BS: clarification on DAD you mention please slide
[12:56:37] <petrescu7> slide: Limiting multicast...
[12:56:48] <petrescu7> BS: optimistic DAd and those things
[12:56:57] <petrescu7> DT: difference between IPv4 and IPv6 works
[12:57:12] <petrescu7> DT: bunch of extra work"? better kill two birds of one stone
[12:57:16] <petrescu7> BS: switch is BS?
[12:57:21] <petrescu7> slide: Short Summary of ...
[12:57:28] <petrescu7> slide: Ethernet-lIke Link Model
[12:57:34] <petrescu7> DT: switch is the bridge
[12:58:00] <petrescu7> DT: one of the secnarions assumptions this bridge could be an offtheshelf bridge
[12:58:36] <petrescu7> DT: we got a bunch of running code for igmp, but IPv6
[12:58:49] <petrescu7> DT: rather than venting new protocol for IPv6, usual to start from an existing box
[12:58:57] <petrescu7> SDP: how many people read this document
[12:59:04] <petrescu7> SDP: many people
[12:59:22] <petrescu7> SDP: not much feedback, even if LC expired in October, please take a look at it carefully
[12:59:35] <petrescu7> Raj Patil going to present (Basavaraj Patil)
[12:59:41] <petrescu7> Gabriel Montenegro
[12:59:50] <petrescu7> GM: please send comments, please send comments
[13:00:08] --- alfredprasad has left
[13:00:10] --- alfredprasad has joined
[13:00:35] <petrescu7> slide: IPv6 ove 802.16 IPv6CS
[13:01:01] <petrescu7> IPv6 over IPv6 classifier over the backward convergence layer
[13:01:05] <petrescu7> :-)
[13:01:48] <petrescu7> slide: What the I-D specifies
[13:03:20] <petrescu7> bnsmith I got a camera (photo, not webcam) - if there's a slide not on url I can take picture of it
[13:03:34] <petrescu7> slide: The IPv6 convergence sublayer
[13:05:31] --- kakima has left: Computer went to sleep
[13:05:48] --- alfredprasad has left
[13:06:19] <petrescu7> slide: Network model
[13:08:17] <petrescu7> slide: IPv6 Link
[13:09:59] --- kakima has joined
[13:10:27] <petrescu7> slide: Prefix assignment
[13:11:49] <petrescu7> slide: Neighbor Discovery
[13:13:13] --- josoinin@jabber.org/Meebo has joined
[13:13:23] <petrescu7> Jari Arkko
[13:13:29] <petrescu7> JA: the router discovery part
[13:13:41] <petrescu7> JA: in the doucment, it's doing more than what you're saying in slide
[13:13:53] <petrescu7> JA: pointing to DNA FRDE, which you shouldn't be doing (not soon)
[13:13:56] <petrescu7> JA: also to
[13:14:03] <petrescu7> JA: that may be something should be dealt with
[13:14:14] <petrescu7> JA: not need do everything in this doument
[13:14:20] <petrescu7> JA: these seem as upper limits
[13:14:26] <petrescu7> JA: when link up host sends RS
[13:14:31] <petrescu7> RP: ok
[13:14:42] <petrescu7> slide: IPv6 addressing
[13:16:14] <petrescu7> Dave Thaler approaching
[13:16:39] <petrescu7> DT: your list of ways to get interfaces and ids is not complete
[13:16:48] <petrescu7> DT: IPv6 over 802.16 is really the first point
[13:17:12] <petrescu7> DT: you have an id, and beyond that there are other ways (from dhcp, 3041, stateful autoconf) but not specific to IPv6 over .16
[13:17:20] <petrescu7> DT: complete, but only the first points
[13:17:30] <petrescu7> DT: you can enumerate them, not complete is not important
[13:17:44] <petrescu7> DT: "ehre's one way, and there can be many other ways"
[13:17:52] <petrescu7> slide: IPv6 addressing
[13:18:17] <petrescu7> slide: WG LC issues
[13:21:23] <petrescu7> DT: not clear to me that's necessary
[13:21:29] <petrescu7> DT: happens unrelated to .16
[13:21:33] <petrescu7> DT: orthogonal to the link
[13:21:46] <petrescu7> DT: how to get prefix is not different from any other thing (outside .16)
[13:21:49] <petrescu7> DT: not necessary
[13:21:58] <petrescu7> DT: although done in a way for information references...
[13:22:11] <petrescu7> DT: rrfc3316 referencing may be ok if informational
[13:22:23] <petrescu7> RP: how does the AR does DHCP ... that wasnt meant
[13:22:27] <petrescu7> Suresh Krishna
[13:22:31] <petrescu7> SK: two things missing
[13:22:36] <petrescu7> SK: format SLLAO and TLLAO
[13:22:42] <petrescu7> SK: should do that
[13:22:48] <petrescu7> SK should be
[13:23:18] <petrescu7> Jinhyeock Choi
[13:23:31] <petrescu7> JC: DNA solution draft will not be ready tsoon, should it be referred?
[13:23:36] <petrescu7> JC: DNA solution draft
[13:23:45] <petrescu7> JA: a different solution draft? in addition to FRD?
[13:23:58] <petrescu7> JC: DNA draft is different, we plan to change it to solution draft
[13:24:01] <petrescu7> DT: two things
[13:24:13] <petrescu7> DT: referer to a work in progress, if it's dont in informational references
[13:24:26] <petrescu7> DT: only in the statement matching your slideNeighbor Discovery
[13:24:46] <petrescu7> DT: don't know whether the ref is necessary
[13:24:56] <petrescu7> DT: one practical to even avoid referencing
[13:25:03] <petrescu7> JA: reference is not to a draft but to an RFC
[13:25:13] <petrescu7> DT: currently is to an RFC which is not a protocol but reqs
[13:25:21] <petrescu7> DT: sugegstion change it to internet draft
[13:25:29] <petrescu7> DT: remove it entirely, should be advertised with L bit set
[13:25:42] <petrescu7> SK: reference didn't have to be there, if it has to be there it should informational
[13:25:52] <petrescu7> SK: if you want to maintain, explaing the rationale
[13:26:00] <petrescu7> DT: referencing didn't really explain any way
[13:26:12] <petrescu7> RP: ol
[13:26:14] <petrescu7> RP: ok
[13:26:41] <petrescu7> RP: asking for comments and references. LC is still open, please comment.
[13:27:11] <petrescu7> JA: emphasize it's up to the WG get this review. It's in pretty good shape, but definetelty need sdiscussion in th WG, not necessarily lot of time,
[13:27:15] <petrescu7> but please do
[13:27:33] <petrescu7> JA: once that's done we can get 2-week IETF LC and IESG
[13:27:37] <petrescu7> Max Riegel
[13:27:41] <petrescu7> is going to present
[13:28:21] <petrescu7> slide: IP over ETH over IEEE802.16
[13:28:43] <petrescu7> slide: Outline
[13:30:04] <petrescu7> co-chair: make sure , intention of this issue is have WG have to adaption
[13:30:14] <petrescu7> co-chair: don't miss any opportunity to make comment
[13:30:32] <petrescu7> co-chair is SDP
[13:32:01] <petrescu7> slide: IPoETH-CS Link Model
[13:34:19] <petrescu7> Dave Johnston
[13:34:24] <petrescu7> DJ: assumption about bridge
[13:34:33] <petrescu7> DJ: bridge doesn't have ports to other things
[13:34:46] <petrescu7> MR: a standard bridge with multiple ports, BS connected to...
[13:34:53] <petrescu7> DJ: and nothing else (connected to)
[13:35:06] <petrescu7> DJ: would AR need to know by some configuration that there is some bridge
[13:35:11] <petrescu7> MR: no, keep agnostic
[13:35:19] <petrescu7> DT: is there discussion over the last point in draft?
[13:35:29] <petrescu7> DT: justification for bottom statement
[13:35:38] <petrescu7> DT: not entirely clear as to why is that true
[13:35:43] <petrescu7> MR: from the mailing list
[13:35:57] <petrescu7> MR: recommendation from people why not implementing bridge on each BS
[13:36:07] <petrescu7> DT: different than single bridge for all Access NEtworkes
[13:36:16] <petrescu7> DT: multiple parallel bridges
[13:36:26] <petrescu7> DT: one access network? or two? Ruling that out or not?
[13:36:39] <petrescu7> MR: one broigde per link
[13:36:44] <petrescu7> MR: one bridge per shared link
[13:36:52] <petrescu7> DT: would like see justification for that
[13:36:53] --- rjaksa has joined
[13:37:03] <petrescu7> MR: Ethernet spec you'll see filtering home addresses and packets
[13:37:10] <petrescu7> MR: and detecting any host responidign
[13:37:12] <petrescu7> MR: ND
[13:37:29] <petrescu7> DT: why the distinction is specific to .16? It's not a constraint applying outside .16
[13:37:35] <petrescu7> MR: get rid of unnecessary multicast
[13:37:38] <petrescu7> DT: not unique to .16
[13:37:43] <petrescu7> MR: unique in the app space
[13:37:50] <petrescu7> RP: bridge function to all bs?
[13:37:52] <petrescu7> MR: yes
[13:38:05] <petrescu7> MR: bridge function in every bs has filtering in, dpeneidnig on tables
[13:38:16] <petrescu7> MR: positive match, but negative match over all network- not negative
[13:38:18] <petrescu7> DT: true
[13:38:25] <petrescu7> DT: negative match is harmful
[13:38:43] <petrescu7> RP: for the Eth CS (IP over Eth) always a need of this kind of bridge?
[13:38:45] <petrescu7> MR: yes
[13:38:52] <petrescu7> RP: not a standard bridge
[13:38:57] <petrescu7> MR: std with some nehancements
[13:39:06] <petrescu7> MR: couple apps run very well, for others I have concerns
[13:39:15] <petrescu7> MR: I can show the apps running well of these bridges
[13:39:36] <petrescu7> MR: just taking negative filtering may be harmful, but if I have a positive hit then I can forget, but if no positive hit in whole network
[13:39:48] <petrescu7> MR: find out no positive hit in whole network different than distributed bridges
[13:40:00] <petrescu7> DT: but flooding does not require any global knowledge
[13:40:08] <petrescu7> DT: don't pass it down if...
[13:40:20] <petrescu7> DT: if I can rretreat what I said
[13:40:39] <petrescu7> DT: two bridges one knows positive match, other nothing. (explaining what you say)
[13:40:44] <petrescu7> DT: no objection
[13:41:11] <petrescu7> MR: that's idea of distributed briudges and synch protocol - adding complexitiy, just to get basic understanding of model. LAter we can add synchro protocol,
[13:41:17] <petrescu7> slide: Deployment Scenarios
[13:43:08] <petrescu7> slide: Results of 16ng Interim on Sept. 12/13
[13:44:29] --- cabo--tzi--org@jabber.org has joined
[13:44:32] <petrescu7> slide: IP over ETH CS Design Call on Oct. 20
[13:44:58] --- kakima has left
[13:46:03] --- bnsmith has left
[13:46:22] --- ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com has joined
[13:47:51] <petrescu7> slide: draft-riegel-16ng-ip-over-eth-over-80216-01.txt
[13:49:51] --- bnsmith has joined
[13:50:33] <petrescu7> SK: you don't need any text for privacy extensions
[13:50:40] <petrescu7> MR: I must learn about IP addresses behind some...
[13:50:46] <petrescu7> MR: which IP address on which port
[13:50:54] <petrescu7> SK: privacy not different than any other address
[13:51:03] <petrescu7> MR: how to learn additional IP addresses
[13:51:12] <petrescu7> SK: addresses on dhcp, or bhca
[13:51:22] <petrescu7> SK: slippery slope
[13:51:33] <petrescu7> DT: agree you don't need to talk about 3041
[13:51:43] <petrescu7> DT: why about gaining an IP address?
[13:51:46] <petrescu7> DT: AR needs
[13:51:53] <petrescu7> DT: switch MLD
[13:52:14] <petrescu7> DT: but not care how many addresses are shared
[13:52:18] <petrescu7> MR: need time to think about
[13:52:27] <petrescu7> MR: takes couple of minutes to find it
[13:52:33] <petrescu7> MR: I'll think about it
[13:53:31] <petrescu7> JA: what's the RA part you need?
[13:53:44] <petrescu7> MR: filtering out? not filteirng out? necessary? optimizations?
[13:53:51] <petrescu7> MR: RAs currently flooding the network?
[13:54:07] <petrescu7> MR: a couple of things think about... bridge initiates RS?
[13:54:25] <petrescu7> MR: not generating, but initiating
[13:54:44] <petrescu7> DT: they may be limited... this part of probelm referenced in that RFC, some admin guys configure this RA parameter
[13:54:57] <petrescu7> DT: but not anything to say that resolve any change in code somewhere
[13:55:10] <petrescu7> DT: imagine: when you wake up you send RS, that's good, should be put in text.
[13:55:18] <petrescu7> DT: but there are things.
[13:55:23] <petrescu7> MR: in draft we have two sentences
[13:55:42] <petrescu7> DT: don't think anything to require code change to an existing IPv6 compliant implementation that's link type agnostic
[13:55:46] <petrescu7> SK: relay agent?
[13:55:56] <petrescu7> SK: relaying RA should not cost time to invalid?
[13:56:05] <petrescu7> SK: talk to bridge tell them what to do? Target audience?
[13:56:20] <petrescu7> MR: handling of RA it's a caswe for dormant node. Thought about mechanisms to delay RAs
[13:56:25] <petrescu7> MR: that's the reason
[13:56:35] <petrescu7> MR: if strange things with RAs make sure not violated
[13:56:39] <petrescu7> SK: who's target?
[13:56:42] <petrescu7> SK: bridge
[13:56:59] <petrescu7> MR: some entity intercepting RAs
[13:57:12] <petrescu7> SK: we have a draft in DNA, same constraints, a device in milieu
[13:57:16] <petrescu7> SK: talk to Jim
[13:57:18] <petrescu7> MR: thanks
[13:57:26] <petrescu7> slide: ToC
[13:58:23] <petrescu7> slide: Comments and discussions on the list
[13:59:15] --- m_ersue has joined
[13:59:35] <petrescu7> slide: Conclusion and further proceeding
[14:00:16] <petrescu7> MR: asking for adoption of WG item
[14:00:25] <petrescu7> Gabriel Montenegro (co-chair) approaching
[14:00:54] <petrescu7> GM: I see probably Ethernet CS discussion there was discussion a lot dormant mode
[14:01:00] <petrescu7> GM: how higher priority that is
[14:01:09] <petrescu7> GM: the deployment model is not very different than DSL or cable
[14:01:17] <petrescu7> GM: device is not expected to be usually on batteries
[14:01:24] <petrescu7> GM: if batteries - is that a mobile?
[14:01:32] <petrescu7> GM: if not that then not existing usecase
[14:01:46] <petrescu7> GM: if there's complications arising because of that consideration then they could be left later on
[14:01:53] <petrescu7> MR: power assumption for most static devices
[14:02:04] <petrescu7> MR: also missing co-existiceence betwen IPcs and ETHCS
[14:02:12] <petrescu7> MR: feed IPCS terminals on same network
[14:02:19] <petrescu7> MR: IPCS sitting in the
[14:02:24] <petrescu7> MR: would be good to get those
[14:02:31] <petrescu7> GM was that sorry
[14:02:51] <petrescu7> GM: how with a mixture of IPCS and EthCS
[14:03:06] <petrescu7> GM: be clear it won't happen with same link, not issues with tie iab draft
[14:03:21] <petrescu7> DJ: implementing rariod loop loop systems
[14:03:29] <petrescu7> DJ: regulationary need for valid batteries
[14:03:42] <petrescu7> DJ: case for batteries is gonna be just same
[14:03:50] <petrescu7> radio link loop systems
[14:04:01] <petrescu7> BS: this case same network IPCS and EthCS
[14:04:12] <petrescu7> BS: that conernces me if they use different subnet model
[14:04:17] <petrescu7> BS: in 3gpp/2 they don't have that
[14:04:33] <petrescu7> MR: wait until you see this coexistence is done then go and see if there are issues
[14:04:53] <petrescu7> SDP: how many people read document?
[14:05:03] <petrescu7> bunch of hands
[14:05:06] <petrescu7> SDP: 10 or 15
[14:05:18] <petrescu7> SDP: need to get full consensus of adoption on this doc
[14:05:24] <petrescu7> SDP: how many people favorable of adopting
[14:05:31] <petrescu7> SDP: ok thanks
[14:05:38] <petrescu7> SDP: how many people not favorable
[14:05:41] <petrescu7> SDP: wow
[14:05:51] <petrescu7> SDP: we're supposed to have it as a WG item
[14:06:00] <petrescu7> SDP: we'd like to confirm this on the mailing list
[14:06:39] <petrescu7> slide: IPv4 over 802.16 IP CS
[14:06:46] <petrescu7> Soohong Daniel Park presenting
[14:07:47] <petrescu7> slide: IPv4 Convergence Sublayer
[14:08:29] --- cabo--tzi--org@jabber.org has left: Logged out
[14:09:31] <petrescu7> slide: WiMAX Network Architecture
[14:10:39] <petrescu7> slide frame format
[14:10:56] <petrescu7> slide: address assignment
[14:12:26] <petrescu7> Dave Thaler
[14:12:53] --- jasso1 has left
[14:14:21] <petrescu7> DT: discussion about privacy we had
[14:14:25] <petrescu7> DT: narrow to relevant
[14:14:31] <petrescu7> DT: points of NAT and DHCP relay
[14:14:47] <petrescu7> DT: it's not really about IPv4 over IPv4 packet CS (with subclassificator)
[14:14:57] <petrescu7> DT: consistent in terms of what's in scope for document
[14:15:08] <petrescu7> DT: don't know whether it's on document or on presentation
[14:15:19] <petrescu7> DT: less is better unless something unique different from normal
[14:15:26] <petrescu7> DT: nothing specific about DHCP
[14:15:45] <petrescu7> DT: what goes in ID field of request then say that, but rest of stuff it's not relevant to this discussion, although it's maybe true
[14:15:50] <petrescu7> SDP: true
[14:15:57] <petrescu7> DT: a unique id in DHCP
[14:16:08] <petrescu7> DT: appropriate to say what you put in there
[14:16:15] <petrescu7> DT: but a lot ofther stuff not necessary
[14:16:22] <petrescu7> DT: valid for any .16ng document
[14:16:30] <petrescu7> Ken Young?
[14:16:43] <petrescu7> KY: there were extensions for DHCP relays, option is option 86
[14:16:48] <petrescu7> KY: specific to 16ng?
[14:16:53] <petrescu7> that was DT
[14:16:55] <petrescu7> KY: not
[14:17:07] <petrescu7> Kenneth Young
[14:17:17] <petrescu7> DT and KY are in agreement
[14:17:31] <petrescu7> KY: what the specific reference is top option 86 is what? we need to find that.
[14:17:43] <petrescu7> DT: you only need to repeat that.
[14:17:44] --- nm has left: Replaced by new connection
[14:17:44] --- nm has joined
[14:17:45] --- nm has left
[14:17:53] <petrescu7> SDP: wondering
[14:17:58] <petrescu7> SDP: in EthCS document
[14:18:03] <petrescu7> SDP: not issues?
[14:18:09] <petrescu7> Max Riegel
[14:18:13] <petrescu7> MR: not addressed yet
[14:18:21] <petrescu7> MR: should address how it;s done and where
[14:18:39] <petrescu7> SDP asked Max Riegel whether in his document he addresses this
[14:18:48] <petrescu7> slide: Address Assignment
[14:18:49] --- nm has joined
[14:19:08] <petrescu7> slide: address mapping
[14:19:30] <petrescu7> slide: Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
[14:20:24] <petrescu7> DT: why [prxy ARP? proxy ARP? if pointopoint then why proxy ARP?
[14:20:31] <petrescu7> DT: proxy ARP is a box in the middle
[14:20:43] <petrescu7> DJ: why not
[14:20:50] <petrescu7> DT: because haven't shown picture
[14:21:00] <petrescu7> JHC Choi
[14:21:07] <petrescu7> JC: asked
[14:21:22] <petrescu7> SDP: point to point link is just layer 2
[14:21:44] <petrescu7> DT: we agree if you take point to point link and then connect that to another link then make it a combined link then you need proxy ARP
[14:21:55] <petrescu7> DT: more than just specifying IP over IPCS
[14:21:59] <petrescu7> KY: same confusion as Dave
[14:22:05] <petrescu7> KY: although pointopoint
[14:22:11] <petrescu7> KY: how the subnetting gets done
[14:22:16] <petrescu7> KY: understand better
[14:22:44] <petrescu7> DJ: 802.16k attempts to resolve this consfusuiion than 802.16 CS to CS form a pointotpoint link
[14:22:57] <petrescu7> DJ: one despecifies the natuer of ptp link,
[14:23:17] <petrescu7> slide: Next Step
[14:23:58] <petrescu7> DT: IPv4 CS is not the ... neither
[14:24:15] <petrescu7> DT: it's a packet CS with an IP-specific subpart with a filter
[14:24:21] <petrescu7> DT: the packet CS with IP subpart
[14:24:31] <petrescu7> DT: both IPv4 and IPv6 CS document
[14:24:41] <petrescu7> DT: should this document and the one presented earlier should be combined?
[14:24:49] <petrescu7> DT: same content presented in both sets of slides
[14:25:01] <petrescu7> DT: there are some differences, way using DHCP options
[14:25:10] <petrescu7> DT: bunch of stuff common between documents
[14:25:19] <petrescu7> DT: why isn't this combined with the other draft
[14:25:26] <petrescu7> DT: if the only difference is in this classification
[14:25:31] <petrescu7> DT: then 1-2 pages can resolve
[14:25:56] <petrescu7> DT: classification applies in this way for IPv4, for IPv6
[14:26:01] <petrescu7> SDP: long story
[14:26:08] <petrescu7> SDP: when Chartering, how to make deliverable
[14:26:12] <petrescu7> SDP: separate...
[14:26:22] <petrescu7> DT: common text
[14:26:24] <petrescu7> DT: do it once
[14:26:31] <petrescu7> DJ: reason separate is
[14:26:48] <petrescu7> DJ: 1113 9 1 spec classifier, there is one thing TLV 12903470187
[14:26:56] <petrescu7> DJ: packet is 802.i Ethernet
[14:27:05] <petrescu7> DJ: packet IPv4/.3 IPv6/.3 Ethernet
[14:27:16] <petrescu7> DJ: packet 802.3 Ethernet
[14:27:21] <petrescu7> DJ: should be used here
[14:27:30] <petrescu7> DJ: look at IP options of IPCS
[14:27:40] <petrescu7> DJ: you find
[14:27:56] <petrescu7> DJ: that IP with header compression ROHC, CRTP header compression
[14:28:02] <petrescu7> DJ: and packet IPv4 and packet IPv6
[14:28:08] <petrescu7> DJ: didn't put in
[14:28:15] <petrescu7> DJ: two separate classifications
[14:28:27] <petrescu7> DJ: specify HC form
[14:28:45] <petrescu7> GM: go ahead
[14:28:57] <petrescu7> DJ: convenient classifier entry...
[14:29:52] <petrescu7> AP: header compression?
[14:30:06] <petrescu7> DT: the level of treatment of detail should be same
[14:30:14] <petrescu7> DT: Eth draft, IPv4 and IPv6 draft
[14:30:20] <petrescu7> DT: should be same level of detail
[14:30:32] <petrescu7> DT: parts that are general about the IP subpart in CS
[14:30:56] <petrescu7> (AP is myself Alex Petrescu)
[14:31:01] <petrescu7> DT: really specific to IPv4 and IPv6
[14:31:21] <petrescu7> DT: what is the ration between the delta parts and the common parts
[14:31:24] <petrescu7> ratio
[14:31:34] <petrescu7> DT: there might be simplre to write, common introduction
[14:31:49] <petrescu7> GM: take this to mailing list
[14:31:58] --- sarikaya has left
[14:32:02] --- rjaksa has left
[14:32:05] <petrescu7> GM officially meeting is over, if people can chat
[14:32:06] --- ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com has left: Logged out
[14:32:11] --- petrescu7 has left
[14:32:46] --- ks has left
[14:32:56] --- yowada has left: Logged out
[14:35:04] --- josoinin@jabber.org/Meebo has left: Logged out
[14:42:44] --- nm has left: Replaced by new connection
[14:42:45] --- nm has joined
[15:18:28] --- nm has left
[16:03:03] --- m_ersue has left