[13:48:42] --- bpjab1 has joined
[13:49:04] <bpjab1> We will post the documents for the meeting online at the beginning of the meeting
[15:18:25] --- sakai has joined
[15:35:17] <bpjab1> The meeting slides are available at www.mindspring.com/~bpatil/IETF58/MIP6/
[15:35:32] <bpjab1> Agenda is fine.
[15:35:43] <bpjab1> Document status presented. No questions on the status
[15:36:08] <bpjab1> Samita presenting the MIP6 interop testing I-D
[15:36:50] <bpjab1> The I-D is intended to be used as guidelines for interop testing
[15:43:57] --- avri has joined
[15:47:37] <bpjab1> TAHI and UNH have developed the conformance test suite and are happy to work with ETSI and the IETF
[15:47:59] <bpjab1> TJ Kniveton presenting the mechanism details
[15:48:26] --- Joseph has joined
[15:51:19] --- Joseph has left: Replaced by new connection
[15:53:15] <bpjab1> No questions on the presentation
[15:54:00] <bpjab1> This I-D will not be a WG draft. However can be progressed towards Informational RFC independently
[15:54:09] --- Joseph has joined
[15:56:05] <bpjab1> Ryuji presenting the Inter HA protocol
[15:56:22] <bpjab1> Focus on problem statement
[16:11:07] <bpjab1> Brijesh> If the secondary HA forwards packets thru the primary HA, how do you achieve the objective of reducing the load on the HA?
[16:12:07] <bpjab1> Brijesh> If two HAs advertise router prefixes, how would you ensure that the 2nd routing prefix enters into the table ?
[16:23:25] <Joseph> Was there a general response to the 2 questions
[16:23:40] <bpjab1> Which 2 questions?
[16:23:53] <bpjab1> Oh, the above two questions....
[16:24:03] <Joseph> yes on Inter HA
[16:24:08] <bpjab1> For the first one, the authors recognize that is a deficiency
[16:24:20] <bpjab1> For the 2nd one, there was no clear answer.
[16:24:40] <Joseph> Alright, thanks
[16:24:44] <bpjab1> Problem statement to be clarified before taking on further work.
[16:29:34] <bpjab1> Samita presented the MIP6 extensions for th Advanced socket API
[16:29:43] <bpjab1> Q to WG: Should this I-D be a WG I-D
[16:30:05] <bpjab1> Consensus was to make this a WG document
[16:30:53] <bpjab1> Nicolas presenting the problem statement for multihomed MNs
[16:45:04] <bpjab1> What WG should we take up this work in?
[16:45:41] <bpjab1> Its not very clear. It probably needs to be discussed in each of these WGs and then determine if a new BOF/WG or some existing WG can do the work
[16:46:42] <bpjab1> Also it would be good to identify the scenarios that are important to MIP6 and then determine a more narrow problem statement for the WG
[16:47:30] <bpjab1> Glenn Keeni presenting the MIP6 MIB
[17:13:37] --- Joseph has left
[17:20:10] --- Joseph has joined
[17:20:10] --- sakai has left
[17:21:26] <bpjab1> Input solicited from WG on the MIB
[17:21:26] <Joseph> Have they discussed the RO Hints?
[17:21:37] <bpjab1> Yes. That is done.
[17:21:51] <Joseph> Ok, thanks
[17:22:26] <bpjab1> Conclusion on RO hints: Scope of RO hints is larger than just the issue about the MN being behind a firewall.
[17:26:00] <Joseph> k, thanks for scribing bpjab
[17:26:20] <bpjab1> Not a problem :)
[17:27:01] --- Joseph has left
[17:29:04] <bpjab1> Gopal presenting the WG roadmap
[17:29:19] <bpjab1> Vijay> The bootstrapping requirement is not very clear
[17:29:39] <bpjab1> Charles> It would make sense for this WG to be combined with MIPSHOP
[17:30:03] <bpjab1> Samita> It is better not to split the RO from the base specification
[17:34:37] <bpjab1> People interested in working on the bootstrapping problem should talk to chairs
[17:34:41] <bpjab1> Meeting over
[17:38:17] --- bpjab1 has left
[17:42:57] --- avri has left: Disconnected