consensus call on draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt

During the meeting, chairs asked the attendees if

draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt

shall be accepted for the transport of the policies as
described in  
the 4th WG item

[A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for
an exchange of  
policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and
from the  
Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice
of the  
Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The solution
involves two  
specifications, one for the policy format and another for
its  
transport [both Standard Track]

To this question, nobody voted against at the last Monami6
meeting.  
So, we would like to confirm this decision on the ML.

If you have a specific concern with this decision, please
express  
your views until 12:01 am UTC Thursday, August the 16th,
2007

Regards,
the chairs

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

Hi,

I was not at the last meeting, so I maybe missing some
discussion.   
Sorry for the absence.

However:
Is it going to be the only solution draft for the
transport?

Other question is:
Did the WG well study requirements for the transport? and
draft- 
soliman meets the requirements?

thanks,
Koshiro



On 2007/08/02, at 12:54, Nicolas Montavont wrote:

> During the meeting, chairs asked the attendees if
>
> draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt
>
> shall be accepted for the transport of the policies as
described in  
> the 4th WG item
>
> [A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution
for an exchange of  
> policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent
and from the  
> Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the
choice of the  
> Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The solution
involves two  
> specifications, one for the policy format and another
for its  
> transport [both Standard Track]
>
> To this question, nobody voted against at the last
Monami6 meeting.  
> So, we would like to confirm this decision on the ML.
>
> If you have a specific concern with this decision,
please express  
> your views until 12:01 am UTC Thursday, August the
16th, 2007
>
> Regards,
> the chairs
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monami6 mailing list
> Monami6ietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6


_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

Hi Koshiro,

On Aug 3, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Koshiro MITSUYA wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was not at the last meeting, so I maybe missing some
discussion.   
> Sorry for the absence.
>
> However:
> Is it going to be the only solution draft for the
transport?

Yes

>
> Other question is:
> Did the WG well study requirements for the transport?
and draft- 
> soliman meets the requirements?

Yes, we discussed this at IETF 68, and had a rough consensus
on the  
solution proposed by draft-soliman. We said that a transport
within  
the mobility messages was the most straight forward solution
and can  
benefit from the security already in place by MIPv6.

Regards,

Nicolas

>
> thanks,
> Koshiro
>
>
>
> On 2007/08/02, at 12:54, Nicolas Montavont wrote:
>
>> During the meeting, chairs asked the attendees if
>>
>> draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt
>>
>> shall be accepted for the transport of the policies
as described  
>> in the 4th WG item
>>
>> [A "Flow/binding policies exchange"
solution for an exchange of  
>> policies from the mobile host/router to the Home
Agent and from  
>> the Home Agent to the mobile host/router
influencing the choice of  
>> the Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The
solution involves  
>> two specifications, one for the policy format and
another for its  
>> transport [both Standard Track]
>>
>> To this question, nobody voted against at the last
Monami6  
>> meeting. So, we would like to confirm this decision
on the ML.
>>
>> If you have a specific concern with this decision,
please express  
>> your views until 12:01 am UTC Thursday, August the
16th, 2007
>>
>> Regards,
>> the chairs
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Monami6 mailing list
>> Monami6ietf.org
>> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monami6 mailing list
> Monami6ietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6


_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

Hi Nicolas,

Thank you for your quick response.
Please find my comments inline.


On 2007/08/03, at 2:13, Nicolas Montavont wrote:

> Hi Koshiro,
>
> On Aug 3, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Koshiro MITSUYA wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was not at the last meeting, so I maybe missing
some  
>> discussion.  Sorry for the absence.
>>
>> However:
>> Is it going to be the only solution draft for the
transport?
>
> Yes

OK, you mean the WG accepts only this draft as the transport
solution  
and no other transport solutions will be published from the
WG.  I  
then disagree, because draft-soliman does not provide a
network- 
initiated filter transport, and because BU/BA needs to carry
 
additional error handling for the policy exchange (e.g. In
the case  
of error and MN want to try to send policy again, additional
BU/BA  
will be required although CoA is successfully installed).


>>
>> Other question is:
>> Did the WG well study requirements for the
transport? and draft- 
>> soliman meets the requirements?
>
> Yes, we discussed this at IETF 68, and had a rough
consensus on the  
> solution proposed by draft-soliman. We said that a
transport within  
> the mobility messages was the most straight forward
solution and  
> can benefit from the security already in place by
MIPv6.
>

Yes, I agree that a transport within the mobility messages
can  
benefit from the security and it is good.

What about defining a new mobility message (not a mobility
option as  
today) for filter rules transport?  If it's a mobility
option, the  
option always needs to carry within BU/BA.  But if it an
message, MN/ 
HA can exchange filter rules independently of BU/BA
exchange, and  
still can benefit from security already in place by MIPv6.

regards,
Koshiro


> Regards,
>
> Nicolas
>
>>
>> thanks,
>> Koshiro
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2007/08/02, at 12:54, Nicolas Montavont wrote:
>>
>>> During the meeting, chairs asked the attendees
if
>>>
>>> draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt
>>>
>>> shall be accepted for the transport of the
policies as described  
>>> in the 4th WG item
>>>
>>> [A "Flow/binding policies exchange"
solution for an exchange of  
>>> policies from the mobile host/router to the
Home Agent and from  
>>> the Home Agent to the mobile host/router
influencing the choice  
>>> of the Care-of Address and Home Agent address.
The solution  
>>> involves two specifications, one for the policy
format and  
>>> another for its transport [both Standard
Track]
>>>
>>> To this question, nobody voted against at the
last Monami6  
>>> meeting. So, we would like to confirm this
decision on the ML.
>>>
>>> If you have a specific concern with this
decision, please express  
>>> your views until 12:01 am UTC Thursday, August
the 16th, 2007
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> the chairs
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> Monami6 mailing list
>>> Monami6ietf.org
>>> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Monami6 mailing list
>> Monami6ietf.org
>> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monami6 mailing list
> Monami6ietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6


_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

Dear all,

On Aug. 2, we asked for consensus to confirm the acceptance
of
draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt as MonAmi6 WG item
for the
transport of flow filters (4th working group item on the
charter). This 
is a  confirmation of the positive show of hands during the
last IETF 
meeting in Chicago (see the MonAmi6 minutes)

Since then we got (only) one feedback from Koshiro Mitsuya
who disagrees 
on this decision to accept this personal draft as a WG
document (see his 
comments early August on this thread).

Note that during the discussion we had at IETF 68, we agreed
that the 
Monami6 WG would define a solution which transports the
filter rules 
within the mobility messages, especially to re-use the
security 
association between the MN and its HA. Only draft-soliman
meets this 
agreement.

So, unless other people express themselves on this list in
the next few
days (thus, people who where on vacation in August still
have the
opportunity to express their opinion), I think it's
reasonable to say 
that we have rough consensus to 
adoptdraft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt as WG
document.

That document would then still be in a draft state and any
input to 
improve the solution would be welcomed.

Regards,
MonAmi6 WG Chairs Nicolas Montavont & Thierry Ernst



Nicolas Montavont wrote:
> During the meeting, chairs asked the attendees if
> 
> draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt
> 
> shall be accepted for the transport of the policies as
described in the 
> 4th WG item
> 
> [A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution
for an exchange of policies 
> from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from
the Home Agent to 
> the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the
Care-of Address and 
> Home Agent address. The solution involves two
specifications, one for 
> the policy format and another for its transport [both
Standard Track]
> 
> To this question, nobody voted against at the last
Monami6 meeting. So, 
> we would like to confirm this decision on the ML.
> 
> If you have a specific concern with this decision,
please express your 
> views until 12:01 am UTC Thursday, August the 16th,
2007
> 
> Regards,
> the chairs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Monami6 mailing list
> Monami6ietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
> 






_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

Dear All

I agree this solution as one solution for the trasport of
flow filters.

On the other hand, when thinking about a generic solution
for the
transport, I think we also need to consider a use case for
the transport
of flow filters from HA to MN/MR.

For example, there is a case that an administrator of HA
such as
a network operator wants to modify flow filters of MN/MR
for
network congestion control.

What do you think about this case?

regards,
Kazuyuki

Thierry Ernst Wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> On Aug. 2, we asked for consensus to confirm the
acceptance of
> draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt as MonAmi6 WG
item for the
> transport of flow filters (4th working group item on
the charter). This 
> is a  confirmation of the positive show of hands during
the last IETF 
> meeting in Chicago (see the MonAmi6 minutes)
> 
> Since then we got (only) one feedback from Koshiro
Mitsuya who disagrees 
> on this decision to accept this personal draft as a WG
document (see his 
> comments early August on this thread).
> 
> Note that during the discussion we had at IETF 68, we
agreed that the 
> Monami6 WG would define a solution which transports the
filter rules 
> within the mobility messages, especially to re-use the
security 
> association between the MN and its HA. Only
draft-soliman meets this 
> agreement.
> 
> So, unless other people express themselves on this list
in the next few
> days (thus, people who where on vacation in August
still have the
> opportunity to express their opinion), I think it's
reasonable to say 
> that we have rough consensus to 
> adoptdraft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt as WG
document.
> 
> That document would then still be in a draft state and
any input to 
> improve the solution would be welcomed.
> 
> Regards,
> MonAmi6 WG Chairs Nicolas Montavont & Thierry
Ernst
> 
> 
> 
> Nicolas Montavont wrote:
>> During the meeting, chairs asked the attendees if
>>
>> draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt
>>
>> shall be accepted for the transport of the policies
as described in 
>> the 4th WG item
>>
>> [A "Flow/binding policies exchange"
solution for an exchange of 
>> policies from the mobile host/router to the Home
Agent and from the 
>> Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing
the choice of the 
>> Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The
solution involves two 
>> specifications, one for the policy format and
another for its 
>> transport [both Standard Track]
>>
>> To this question, nobody voted against at the last
Monami6 meeting. 
>> So, we would like to confirm this decision on the
ML.
>>
>> If you have a specific concern with this decision,
please express your 
>> views until 12:01 am UTC Thursday, August the 16th,
2007
>>
>> Regards,
>> the chairs
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Monami6 mailing list
>> Monami6ietf.org
>> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Monami6 mailing list
> Monami6ietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
> 
> 



_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

Hi Nicolas, Hesham

I'm not happy with the way the filter format is being
defined in 
draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-03.txt. However, I have
not been able 
to find the latest version (the one that the consensus call
is being 
made on). Could anyone of you send me the file so that I can
read the 
latest version?

In general I can accept the transport defined in
draft-soliman (if the 
filter format is defined in a separate draft). I know that
other persons 
have expressed their view on the shortcomings (no support
for network 
initiated filter transport) of this transport protocol.
However, as long 
as the filter format is generic we could always come up with
additional 
transport protocol proposals when needed.

Regards
Conny


Nicolas Montavont wrote:
> During the meeting, chairs asked the attendees if
>
> draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt
>
> shall be accepted for the transport of the policies as
described in 
> the 4th WG item
>
> [A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution
for an exchange of 
> policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent
and from the 
> Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the
choice of the 
> Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The solution
involves two 
> specifications, one for the policy format and another
for its 
> transport [both Standard Track]
>
> To this question, nobody voted against at the last
Monami6 meeting. 
> So, we would like to confirm this decision on the ML.
>
> If you have a specific concern with this decision,
please express your 
> views until 12:01 am UTC Thursday, August the 16th,
2007
>
> Regards,
> the chairs
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monami6 mailing list
> Monami6ietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6


_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

Hi Thierry and Hesham

Sorry for my late comments...

I think the draft-flow-binding provides two functionalities
1. coupling FID and flow (formats)
2. registering filters with FID and BID
If the previous Hesham mail to Conny implies that this
document
removes the function-1, we need a document for the generic
format.
However, the current draft-hesham still has filters
description, I  
want to see
the latest document updated after the last IETF.

I have one suggestion.
Since the FID option is mobility option, the authors should
consider
the use of Mobility Header Signaling Messages.
draft-haley-mip6-mh-signaling-02.txt (This document was
already
approved as a MIP6 WG document).
The two reasons:
1. HA can signal filters to MNs!
2. The use of BU is most efficient way (the event of filter
rules
changes are often caused by the movement, i.e. BU), but this
is
not only events when MN changes the filters. I personally
think
MN should avoid sending BU for other purpose than the
binding  
registration.

Next comment is that this document requires for MN to
maintain filter
rules in BC and BUL.  This should be up to implementation.
The BID
itself can point to specific BC or BUL.  No reason to keep
the FID and
flow information in the BC or BUL.
For example, an implementation of HA can manage the sets of
FID and
BID in the flow database.  HA first compares the incoming
packets with
the flow database and acquires the corresponding BID.  Then,
HA can
look for the desired binding which matched with BID and
HoA.

Another comment is whether we really need n-cast or not. The
document
supports n-cast only for HA, but I am not sure we really
need this.

Authors also needs some editorial updates.
For example, in section4.2, the draft said
"   This specification extends the binding cache and
the binding update
    list structures, and allows mobile node to (1) register
multiple
    care-of addresses for a given home address and (2)
associate flow
    binding policies with the registered care-of
addresses."
The similar text is available at the Section7, too.

A general question (not specific to this document)
Monami6 WG needs to coordinate activity. I think we
reach the consensus what we need in the WG such as..
- registering multiple CoAs (mcoa WG document)
- MN initiated filters registration (draft-hesham)
- HA initiated filters registration (supporting MH signaling
in draft- 
hesham?)
- filters and policy rules (draft-larsson and
draft-mitsuya)

In the WG charter, it has
- A protocol extension to Mobile IPv6 (RFC 3775) and NEMO
Basic
Support (RFC 3963) to support the registration of multiple
Care-of
Addresses at a given Home Agent address [Standard Track].
- A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for
an exchange of
policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and
from the
Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice
of the
Care-of Address and Home Agent address [Standard Track].

I don't check the MEXT charter, but can we work on
the generic filter/policy rules in the MEXT WG?

regards
ryuji

On 2007/08/30, at 6:10, Thierry Ernst wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> On Aug. 2, we asked for consensus to confirm the
acceptance of
> draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt as MonAmi6 WG
item for the
> transport of flow filters (4th working group item on
the charter).  
> This is a  confirmation of the positive show of hands
during the  
> last IETF meeting in Chicago (see the MonAmi6 minutes)
>
> Since then we got (only) one feedback from Koshiro
Mitsuya who  
> disagrees on this decision to accept this personal
draft as a WG  
> document (see his comments early August on this
thread).
>
> Note that during the discussion we had at IETF 68, we
agreed that  
> the Monami6 WG would define a solution which transports
the filter  
> rules within the mobility messages, especially to
re-use the  
> security association between the MN and its HA. Only
draft-soliman  
> meets this agreement.
>
> So, unless other people express themselves on this list
in the next  
> few
> days (thus, people who where on vacation in August
still have the
> opportunity to express their opinion), I think it's
reasonable to  
> say that we have rough consensus to
adoptdraft-soliman-monami6-flow- 
> binding-04.txt as WG document.
>
> That document would then still be in a draft state and
any input to  
> improve the solution would be welcomed.
>
> Regards,
> MonAmi6 WG Chairs Nicolas Montavont & Thierry
Ernst
>
>
>
> Nicolas Montavont wrote:
>> During the meeting, chairs asked the attendees if
>> draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt
>> shall be accepted for the transport of the policies
as described  
>> in the 4th WG item
>> [A "Flow/binding policies exchange"
solution for an exchange of  
>> policies from the mobile host/router to the Home
Agent and from  
>> the Home Agent to the mobile host/router
influencing the choice of  
>> the Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The
solution involves  
>> two specifications, one for the policy format and
another for its  
>> transport [both Standard Track]
>> To this question, nobody voted against at the last
Monami6  
>> meeting. So, we would like to confirm this decision
on the ML.
>> If you have a specific concern with this decision,
please express  
>> your views until 12:01 am UTC Thursday, August the
16th, 2007
>> Regards,
>> the chairs
>> _______________________________________________
>> Monami6 mailing list
>> Monami6ietf.org
>> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monami6 mailing list
> Monami6ietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6


_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6