[17:42:06] --- henrik has joined
[17:42:12] --- edmon has joined
[17:42:46] <henrik> edmon, can you act as jabber scribe, please?
[17:43:42] <edmon> not really... not in the room...
[17:44:19] <edmon> sorry :-P
[17:44:42] --- momose has joined
[17:46:48] --- masahiro has joined
[17:47:00] --- pluscom has joined
[17:53:45] --- petrescu7 has joined
[17:54:36] <petrescu7> PMC: MIP4 FA extensions, rfc3344 in ed queue.
[17:55:05] <petrescu7> PMC: 3 new different WG items proposed: DS-MIPv4 (approved iesg, but clarifs in charter needed),
[17:55:16] <petrescu7> PMC: requests for comments.
[17:55:58] <petrescu7> GT: (George Tsirtsis): clarifs by Jari... how to address, scope of the work is here, we have a proposal, limited in scope, just an extension of MIP4 carry IPv6 prefix.
[17:56:07] --- edmon has left
[17:56:09] <petrescu7> GT: supports also FA as well as
[17:56:54] <petrescu7> Jari ARkko: I asked this for because in the MIP6 list, many people misunderstood what the proposal was... question was also about the problem statement, in which charter, or none maybe.
[17:57:04] --- edmon has joined
[17:57:34] <petrescu7> GT: there was a common problem statement. that's in the mip6 wg. it's sufficient. we can add things if needed. some comment was about multiple tunnels problem to be added, we could add that.
[17:57:58] <petrescu7> Vijay Devarapalli: current DS ps draft makes a case for not running both MIP4 and MIP6.
[17:58:08] --- edmon has left
[17:58:12] <petrescu7> VD: makes a case for why...
[17:58:34] <petrescu7> Hesham Soliman: reason we need to extend because it's logical next step. because not both mip4+mip6 together.
[17:58:49] <petrescu7> VD: discussion was a lot, about scenarios.
[17:58:56] <petrescu7> VD: what motivation for vendors.
[17:59:25] <petrescu7> JA: contents of the problem statement, that was my problem. I'm completely fine with document... for this work... explicitely state.
[17:59:30] <petrescu7> HS: you want to have a ps?
[17:59:32] <petrescu7> JA: yes.
[17:59:41] <petrescu7> GT: not discuss ps here?
[17:59:46] <petrescu7> ... of mip6 wg.
[17:59:52] <petrescu7> GT: we can discuss that here then.
[18:00:15] <petrescu7> PMC is Pete McCann.
[18:00:31] <petrescu7> PMC: add nemo support for mobile ipv4. haven't discuss it with ads.s
[18:01:10] <petrescu7> GT: summary what happened: NEMOv4 basic solution, drafted in NEMO WG. NEMO is mainly focused on IPv6, it did accept to work on NEMOv4 base, but is now resisting on any extensions.
[18:01:30] <petrescu7> GT: problem with that is that base NEMOv4 doesn't do FAs, doesn't do dynamic allocation of prefixes...
[18:01:43] <petrescu7> GT: these are the two extensions that should be extended here.
[18:02:02] <petrescu7> GT: we try to work this work done in NEMO where it stareted, but resistance, so we thought better here.
[18:02:09] <petrescu7> HL: specific drafts?
[18:02:29] <petrescu7> Vidya Narayanan: base draft doesn't support optimized FAs. IT does work with FAs.
[18:02:51] <petrescu7> VN: I do hope that work should be done by NEMO, but so much resistance... not very mu...
[18:03:02] <petrescu7> GT: not matter where. Should be revieed by both WGs anyways.
[18:03:37] <petrescu7> HL: to me personally I don't care much here or in NEMO, I find perfect take this on here. I have one question:
[18:04:11] <petrescu7> because this NEMO WG seems this as something just on the side, my understanding is that NEMOv4 base is informational only, that's somehting we should ask ourselves here... should be so or stds track.
[18:04:32] --- bonninjm@jabber.org has joined
[18:05:03] <petrescu7> Kent Leung: we tried to have a homebase for nemov4. In my mind belongs to either. Singalling involved is MIPv4. I support either we migrate or move base NEMO here. From these two drafts perespective be able to work here.
[18:05:11] <petrescu7> KL: these are small enhancements to NEMO.
[18:05:47] <petrescu7> VN: great if we could do NEMOv4 was Stds Trck.... there wasn't support in the NEMO WG. I'd actually support KL suggestion, move base draft here.
[18:05:52] <petrescu7> GT: support that too.
[18:06:16] <petrescu7> PMC: so rom consensus to take the two items here and possible the third.
[18:06:20] <petrescu7> JA: deployment?
[18:06:30] <petrescu7> JA: because research?
[18:09:49] <petrescu7> GT: no, no, doing work gets implemented.
[18:09:52] <petrescu7> ...
[18:10:19] <petrescu7> HL: something to add... so far I don't think it's specified how to specify NEMOv4 trafic over NAT.
[18:15:06] <petrescu7> PMC:... seems there is no objection. Chairs action item to propose text. for dsmip too, see how it goes.
[18:15:15] <petrescu7> GT: in the NEMO meeting what tomorrow?
[18:15:38] <petrescu7> HL: talk to chairs and/or ADs, don't know whether we can take it up for the meeting tomorrow.
[18:16:02] <petrescu7> PMC: generic notification message.
[18:16:12] <petrescu7> Sri Gundavelli presents.
[18:17:14] <petrescu7> slide: update
[18:18:14] <petrescu7> slide: usage examples
[18:18:26] <petrescu7> anybody in this chat room not in the real room?
[18:20:31] <petrescu7> HL: NEMO prefix related here, I don't see that, but the others I believe are relevant. Registration Revoc draft out, I discussed someth similar to this, agreed that it doesn't make sense to reqork this. W'ere coming back to it now, possibly if we dinf that is worth taking on, ... for possible future work.
[18:20:58] <petrescu7> HL: comments on this idea please, basic idea to take this on here.
[18:21:16] <petrescu7> GT: this is a good area, we should take on this.
[18:21:28] <petrescu7> HL: other comments?
[18:21:57] <petrescu7> HL: we'll talk to AD and see if comments, if people, then fine, we may as a result of talks and comments, we may propose additional text for upcoming revision of charter.
[18:22:12] <petrescu7> HL: concluding, and thanks.
[18:22:47] --- momose has left
[18:24:03] --- bonninjm@jabber.org has left: Logged out
[18:24:14] --- pluscom has left
[18:34:26] --- masahiro has left
[18:41:41] --- petrescu7 has left
[19:00:30] --- LOGGING STARTED