List Info

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




Re: consensus call on draft-soliman-monami6- flow-binding-04.txt
user name
2007-09-11 11:44:23
Hi, Hesham

Sorry for the late reply.
Please see comment inline.

Hesham Soliman Wrote:
>  > Thank you for the clarification.
>  > 
>  > When considering more generic protocol to
transport policies 
>  > in this WG,
>  > we can define other protocol different from
draft-flow-binding.
>  > Therefore, I think that we need more discussion
about the 
>  > transport of
>  > policies (flow filters) before accepting
draft-flow-binding 
>  > in current
>  > version as MonAmi6 WG document.
> 
> => We've already discussed the generic Vs
MIPv6-specific protocol issue. I
> don't think we need to discuss it again since nothing
new came up.

I agree that draft-soliman is the generic Vs MIPv6-specific
protocol.

> The point you raised is quite valid but is independent
from the problem
> solved by draft-soliman as Nicolas already explained.
The point you raise is
> "how does the MN know the policy?" Is it
possible for the HA to tell the MN
> what the policies should be? is it manually configured?
is it dependent on a
> generic algorithm? user configured? or all of the
above? 
> I suspect it will be all of the above. You could argue
for the need for a
> framework to handle this issue or even a protocol, but
this is independent
> from the need for the MN to *tell* the HA that it
should enable forwarding
> in a certain manner. These are two different problems
and I don't think we
> need to hold one protocol for another when there is no
dependency. 

The point of my comment is there may be at least two draft
about
transport protocl in the future.
If this is less of a problem and the case I raised is future
work,
I agree that draft-soliman is accepted as WG draft.

regards,
Kazuyuki

> Hesham
> 
>  > 
>  > In this connection, the following document
considers to set up
>  > the policies on the local hosts and the policies
on the MR from HA,
>  > and defines Policy Data Set.
>  > 
>  > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-mitsuya-monami6-flow
-distribut
>  > ion-policy-04.txt
>  > 
>  > However, this document defines only policy data
set and 
>  > doesn't define
>  > the transport protocol.
>  > 
>  > I think that we need to define generic transport
protocol in
>  > the document such as draft-flow-binding as WG
document,
>  > and define common filter rules and processing
when receiving of
>  > filter rules in the document such as
draft-flow-distribution-policy
>  > as WG document.
>  > 
>  > Do you have any comments?
>  > 
>  > regards,
>  > Kazuyuki
>  > 
>  > > 
>  > > Nicolas
>  > > 
>  > >>
>  > >> 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
>  > > 
>  > > 
>  > >
_______________________________________________
>  > > 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

RE: consensus call on draft-soliman-monami6- flow-binding-04.txt
user name
2007-09-11 20:57:48
Just one clarification.

 > > The point you raised is quite valid but is
independent 
 > from the problem
 > > solved by draft-soliman as Nicolas already
explained. The 
 > point you raise is
 > > "how does the MN know the policy?" Is
it possible for the 
 > HA to tell the MN
 > > what the policies should be? is it manually
configured? is 
 > it dependent on a
 > > generic algorithm? user configured? or all of the
above? 
 > > I suspect it will be all of the above. You could
argue for 
 > the need for a
 > > framework to handle this issue or even a
protocol, but 
 > this is independent
 > > from the need for the MN to *tell* the HA that it
should 
 > enable forwarding
 > > in a certain manner. These are two different
problems and 
 > I don't think we
 > > need to hold one protocol for another when there
is no dependency. 
 > 
 > The point of my comment is there may be at least two
draft about
 > transport protocl in the future.

=> To be more accurate, you want to have a draft about
the transfer of
*policies* in addition to the solution in draft-soliman.
These are two
different solutions that can co-exist because draft-soliman
doesn't transfer
policies, it transfers *filter rules*. 

Hesham


 > If this is less of a problem and the case I raised is
future work,
 > I agree that draft-soliman is accepted as WG draft.
 > 
 > regards,
 > Kazuyuki
 > 
 > > Hesham
 > > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > In this connection, the following document
considers to set up
 > >  > the policies on the local hosts and the
policies on the 
 > MR from HA,
 > >  > and defines Policy Data Set.
 > >  > 
 > >  > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-mitsuya-monami6-flow
-distribut
 > >  > ion-policy-04.txt
 > >  > 
 > >  > However, this document defines only policy
data set and 
 > >  > doesn't define
 > >  > the transport protocol.
 > >  > 
 > >  > I think that we need to define generic
transport protocol in
 > >  > the document such as draft-flow-binding as
WG document,
 > >  > and define common filter rules and
processing when receiving of
 > >  > filter rules in the document such as 
 > draft-flow-distribution-policy
 > >  > as WG document.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Do you have any comments?
 > >  > 
 > >  > regards,
 > >  > Kazuyuki
 > >  > 
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > Nicolas
 > >  > > 
 > >  > >>
 > >  > >> 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
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > 
 > >  > >
_______________________________________________
 > >  > > 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
 > 



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

[1-2]

about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )