IETF74 MIPSHOP WG meeting agenda
--------------------------------
          
Monday, March 23, 2009, 0900-1130 AM

Scribe - Mohana Jeyatharan (with some modifications by Vijay Devarapalli)
          
1. WG status and I-Ds update
   Vijay Devarapalli

MIH solution framework document is in the RFC editor queue
DNS extensions for MIH server discovery with the IESG
DHCP extensions for MIH server discovery had a number of comments from the DHC WG.
The are being addressed.

FMIPv6 has been revised as 5258bis. Main change is the use of mobility header 
protocol for HI and HACK messages instead of ICMPv6. There will be a WG last call 
soon on the document

PMIPv6 handover optimizations - Both documents (Using FMIPv6 for PMIPv6 handovers
and Transient binding cache) need more reviews

The chair proposed droping AAA-based handover keys for FMIPv6 from the charter. 
There were no concerns.

New potential WG items - Prefix management for p2p links and DHCP options for 
ANDSF discovery. Both will be presented today.

          
2. Use of FMIPv6 signaling for PMIPv6 handover Optimization
    draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv60
    Hidetoshi Yokota

Vijay's comment:
It would be good to have an explicit indication that the mobility options that come
in a HI or a HACK message after the expected mobility options are related to the 
mobile node context. Typical implementations ignore those mobility options that they
don't understand. 
Rajeev: saying that no need of flag to indicate the type of options.
Vijay: saying this is needed to make it easier for nodes to process the options.
Raj agrees with Vijay.
Rajeev does not agree.. and the issue is decided to be taken offline.

          
3. Use of Transient BCE for PMIPv6 handover optimization
   draft-ietf-mipshop-transient-bce-pmipv6
   Marco Liebsch

George: This looks like MCoA registration. This is like multihoming because the
mobile node can be attached by two different interfaces for a short while
Vijay: No this is a temporary state during a handover. Not the same as MCoA. 
3GPP is interested in this. There is also a similar mechanism in GTP. 
Vijay says perhaps this could be done by implementation specific techniques. The
protocol work is experimental.
Frank's comment is: this is L2 specific. This is 3GPP specific.
Rajeev:Implmemtation are aready doing it so we may need to add in some text. You 
can actually do it without protocol extensions
Rajeev: need to have clear description that HA can do it. But these are the 
limitations. Why you need the protocol?
Vijay: More reviews are needed for this document.

          
4. Prefix Management for FMIPv6 P2P Links
   draft-xia-mipshop-fmip-ptp-03
   Frank Xia

Sri:Is it a MN specific prefix?
Frank says: we need specific request for dedicated prefix request.
Rajeev says: it will get dedicated prefix from NAR.
Rajeev says: we need to be clear of the scope.
Will it get the prefix from AAA. Need to consider how the AAA will 
get the prefix from DHCP server. The scenario is worth while to capture.
Subir Das: What will happen if you dont get the prefix. 
You need to get a preffix early.
Vijay: It will be proposed for adoption as a WG document soon.
          
5. DHCP options for ANDSF
   draft-das-mipshop-andsf-dhcp-options-00
   Subir Das

Vijay: Does 3GPP need this document?
Subir: 3GPP needs this bcos it currently references MIH DHCP options draft for ANDSF 
server discovery. This is incorrect. So a new DHCP option for ANDSF discovery is 
required.
Jari: Fine with this. Also fine with either MIPSHOP standardizing this or if it is 
submitted directly to the AD.
Vijay: Will discuss this further