[Int-area] FW: MANEMO BOF situation
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Mon, 18 June 2007 21:56 UTC
Return-path: <int-area-bounces@lists.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I0PCr-0002fo-Bg; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:56:17 -0400
Received: from int-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I0PCq-0002fj-9K for int-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:56:16 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I0PCp-0002fb-Vx for int-area@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:56:15 -0400
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([193.234.218.130]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I0PCp-0007eg-HN for int-area@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:56:15 -0400
Received: from p130.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB8361986A7 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:56:14 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC23E1986A6 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:56:14 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4676FF7E.6060701@piuha.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:56:14 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>
References: <001d01c7ad21$044204f0$0202a8c0@Teco> <46703F35.50805@piuha.net> <4676F989.5020907@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <4676F989.5020907@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8
Cc:
Subject: [Int-area] FW: MANEMO BOF situation
X-BeenThere: int-area@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/int-area>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: int-area-bounces@lists.ietf.org
> I have asked to get a two hour timeslot in the agenda > dedicated for MANEMO. This does not yet appear on > the currently published agenda, but it will get there > eventually. > > However, instead of calling these two hours a BOF > I have asked it to be a second slot for the AUTOCONF > WG meeting, with an agreement from Thomas and > Shubrahansu -- thanks. The reason I'm asking for > this is that I believe we need to make progress on > the problem definition more than solutions. At > this time I felt it would be more productive to do > that when there is no pressure to prove or disprove > the need for the WG to work on the solutions. > > Here's what I would like to see discussed in the > meeting: > > - What the requirements are > - What we can do with existing routing protocols > - What we cannot do with existing routing protocols > > I.e., focusing on and extending the discussion in > draft-manemo-problem-statement Section 5.2 > and draft-manemoarch Section 4.3. I think the > relationship to NEMO Basic Support is fairly clear, > so we should focus on what the holes are in routing > protocols and autoconfiguration tools. > > Before the meeting I would like to see updated > and submitted drafts on these issues. > > I would like to see proposals on how the MANEMO > issues can be addressed with ad hoc routing > tools, and an evaluation of what the issues in > such an approach are. > > While not a topic in the meeting, I would like > to see a draft about the tree-based solution > along with data about its performance in > comparison to some other approaches. > > We also need significant participation from > the ad hoc routing community. Both MANET > and AUTOCONF chairs have agreed to ensure > that this will be in place, both in terms of > meeting participation as well as preparation > of material before the meeting. We also need > the various key people to talk to each other, > not just in the meeting but also beforehand. > I will contact some of you to ensure that > this happens. > > My expectation is that after IETF-69 we've > made progress in understanding what the > problem is, such that a problem description > draft can gain consensus in the routing > and Internet community. With this description, > the next steps are much easier. > > Jari > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
- [Int-area] FW: MANEMO BOF situation Jari Arkko