[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