Date: Fri, Mar 26th 2010
Meeting Minutes: MIPv4 Working Group
Attendees: MIP4 WG Chairs, Presenters, AD, Attendees (Jabber + In-room)


1. Status of the current WG documents

Chairs gave the status of the current working documents. The read-out
is what is in the slides for each of the documents.

There was one issue that was discussed with regards to the GRE
draft. There seems to be some issue with the document name and hence
its not reflected as a WG document. Henrik asked Parviz to resubmit
the document with the correct name and will be approved as the WG
document.

2. Generic Notification ­ Hui Dengšs Presentation

Hui Deng explained how the authors addressed the IESG comments in the
current revision of the document.

On the topic of new generic extensions, Henrik and Pete clarified on
the text that should be in the IANA section of the
document. Specifically, it should state that this draft will not
define any new extensions.

Henrik responded to the IESG comment on the use of the word "generic",
that this draft is not defining a generic notification frame work, its
MIPv4 specific framework. He thought it might better to change the
names of the messages to "Mobile IPv4 Messages".

Henrik agreed to edit the document to address some of the IANA and
IESG comments. Mainly to ensure, IESG is satisfied, we are not
defining a generic message, but a message specific to Mobile
IP. Henrik explained how to structure this document correctly and not
to present this as a very generic container and that the issue seems
to be with the title. Hui agreed with Henrikšs view.

Parviz asked some clarifications questions regards to GNM.

Hui talked about his next steps. He also talked about the case of
Mobile initiating the notification message. This was requested by
Sebastian (US Cellular). Henrik clarified, we should not go there now.

Henrik talked about the IESG issues. There were good usecases
presented for this message, we essentially need to fix the text the
text.

Henrik talked about Specification Required for new extensions. Henrik
thinks its a tough one to mandate this. But, however, we need to
provide proper guidance on the usage intention and how it should not
be used.

Henrik is going to update the document and send it to the authors.


3. Multiple Tunnel Support for Mobile IPv4 ­ Sri Gundavellišs presentation

Alex asked from the jabber if the HA has only one interface. Sri clarified.

Parviz asked if Bulk registration is supported. Sri talked about the
issues Henrik suggested, keep it simple.

Parviz asked about access link security. Sri explained that the
signaling is at protocol layer and access layer security has nothing
do with this.

Sri will revise the draft and post it.


4. GRE Document - Parviz

Discussion on why GRE doc is a individual draft.

Discussion on the Long form and short form skippable extension, these
are Georgešs review comments.  Also discussed the Kentšs review
comment on RRQ with G bit set, bit without GRE. Parviz agreed to fix
it.


5. Closing comments from Chairs and AD

Jari wanted to know how the IESG comments on Generic Notification
draft will be addressed. Henrik clarified that he will do the spin and
repost the document and that should address all the issues

On 3344bis, Jari has the action item to check.