Subject: [multimob] Rechartering

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:48:07 -0500

Hi all,

Based on possible future work discussions we had in IETF 83 in Paris,
we have prepared a revised charter which is attached to this mail.

Basically a new charter item is proposed on IGMPv3/MLDv2 extensions to
support better operation in mobile environments for which there was
strong support

and

DMM multicast for which there was also strong support will be taken up
subject to rechartering.

Please post your comments/support on the list.

Regards,

Chairs

---

From: Seil Jeon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:03:43 +0100

Hi Behcet,

Thanks to trigger new charter agenda.

"Extension to DMM protocol ~" seems to be too much early. As we told in
Paris meeting, MULTIMOB needs to check the base solution in DMM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future work, subject to rechartering, may study use cases of the base
solution in DMM, and evaluate performance impact.
>From that point, it may discuss MULTIMOB extensions to DMM protocol based
on the identified problem(s).
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seil Jeon

*I**nstituto de **T**elecomunicações*

Campus Universitário de Santiago

P-3810-193 Aveiro - Portugal

Homepage: http://sites.google.com/site/seiljeon

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=150370825&trk=tab_pro

2012/4/23 Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>

> _______________________________________________
> multimob mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>
>

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:07:16 -0500

Hi Seil,

> Paris meeting, MULTIMOB needs to check the base solution in DMM.

I think the text is clear, this item is possible future charter item,
when the time comes we are going to discuss it and set the milestones
accordingly.

Regards,

Behcet
> From that point, it may discuss MULTIMOB extensions to DMM protocol based on
> the identified problem(s).
> .
> Instituto de Telecomunicações
>

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:34:55 -0500

Yes,

I am attaching it inline now:

Multicast Mobility (multimob)
-----------------------------

 Charter

 Current Status: Active

 Chairs:
     Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
     Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>

 Internet Area Directors:
     Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
     Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>

 Internet Area Advisor:
     Brian K. Haberman <[email-masked]>

 Mailing Lists:
     General Discussion: [email-masked]
     To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
     Archive:            http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multimob/

Description of Working Group:

  The Multicast mobility (multimob) working group provides guidance
   for supporting multicast in a mobile environment. The group will work
   on extensions of Proxy Mobile
   IPv6 to improve its capability to handle multicast efficiently. Work
   requiring modifications to IGMPv3/MLDv2 is out of scope in this
   stage of this working group, however, as are modifications to
   multicast routing protocols.

   Specific goals for the group are:

   - A solution to the tunnel convergence problem by separating
     multicast routing from a mobility anchor. Possible techniques are
     using native infrastructure, using a dedicated mobility anchor
     etc.

   - Mechanisms to optimize multicast traffic during a handover. Such
     mechanisms may include context transfer functionality.

   - Mechanisms needed to support multicast source mobility. Both any
     source multicast and source specific multicast source mobility
     will be covered.

   - Document the configuration of IGMPv3/MLDv2 in mobile environments

   The group shall primarily focus on Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) based
   networks when looking at the first three items. It is possible but
   not required that the solutions are applicable also for Mobile IPv6
   (MIPv6) based networks.

   For background, the PMIPv6 specification as defined in RFC 5213 does
   not describe how to support multicast. Some forms of multicast
   support can, however, be built in the involved nodes by using
   existing capabilities of multicast protocols and the underlying
   mobility protocols. The working group has already documented how
   existing mechanisms can be used to support multicast, without
   requiring any additions or changes to message types and parameters
   specified in RFC 5213, and assuming an unmodified mobile host. The
   current goals of the working group relate to improving the
   efficiency of this base solution.

   IGMPv3/MLDv2 has been specified for wired networks with shared links.
   Mobile nodes have needs that are specific to wireless networks and
   mobility (e.g. entering a dormant mode to conserve battery power,
   minimizing the latency for joining and leaving a group in support of
   movement).

   In performing its work, the working group will work closely with
   both the mobility community (NETEXT WG) and the multicast community
   (MBONED WG). The group will consider both source specific multicast
   and any source multicast multicast models.

   Future work, subject to rechartering, may study/evaluate extensions
   to Distributed Mobility Management (dmm) protocol to support multicast.

Goals and Milestones:
  Nov 2010 - Initial version of a document on how to tune IGMPv3/MLDv2
for mobility
  Apr 2011 - Submit a document on how to tune IGMPv3/MLDv2 for
mobility, for publication as either Informational or Best Current
Practice
  Jun 2011 - Initial version of document on PMIPv6 routing
optimizations to avoid tunnel convergence problem
  Nov 2011 - Initial version of document on PMIPv6 multicast source
mobility solution
  Nov 2011 - Initial version of document on PMIPv6 handover optimizations
  Jun 2012 - Submit PMIPv6 routing optimizations document to IESG for
publication as Informational
  Nov 2012 - Submit PMIPv6 handover optimizations document to IESG for
publication as Experimental Standard
  Nov 2012 - Submit PMIPv6 multicast source mobility solution to IESG
for publication as Internet Standard
  Nov 2012 - Initial version of a document on extensions to
IGMPv3/MLDv2 to support better operation in mobile environments
  Jun 2013 - Submit  IGMPv3/MLDv2 extensions to support better
operation in mobile environments to IESG as Internet Standard
  Jun 2012 - Decision to include new work involving extensions to dmm
protocol(s)
  Jun 2013 - Recharter based on the above decisions (or close the
group if no new work is needed)

---

From: Seil Jeon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:50:31 +0100

Hi Behcet,

My comment was not clear.. and yes it is possible for future multimob item.

But I want that part should be revised as follows:

-----------
Future work, subject to rechartering, may study use cases of the base
solution in DMM, and evaluate performance impact. From that point, it may
discuss MULTIMOB extensions to DMM protocol based on the identified
problem(s).
-----------

Regards,

Seil Jeon
2012/4/24 Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:10:31 -0700

On 4/24/2012 7:50 AM, Seil Jeon wrote:
> solution in DMM, and evaluate performance impact. From that point, it
> may discuss MULTIMOB extensions to DMM protocol based on the identified
> problem(s).

I think we can skip the DMM part actually. Since it would be subject to
rechartering, we would need to change the charter anyway. Even if we say
"subject to rechartering" here, we may not be allowed to work on it.
Also, if we don't mention DMM here, we can still get it in a new
charter.

Basically, I don't think a charter needs to talk about possibilities
for future charters. Whether we say it or not, it all depends on what
the group wants to work on, what the IESG thinks it makes sens for us
to work on, etc.

Stig

> -----------
> Regards,
> Seil Jeon
> 2012/4/24 Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>
>     Hi Seil,
>
>     On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Seil Jeon <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>      > Hi Behcet,
>      >
>      > LinkedIn:
>     http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=150370825&trk=tab_pro
>     <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=150370825&trk=tab_pro>
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > 2012/4/23 Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>      >>
>      >> Hi all,
>      >>
>      >> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Seil Jeon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:06:23 +0100

Hi Stig,

See the comments in line.
Best Regards,

Seil

2012/4/24 Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>

> the group wants to work on, what the IESG thinks it makes sens for us

Of course, a charter item will be determined by AD or IESG.
Regarding on putting DMM related proposal, I remember we got a positive
signal in Paris meeting.
So we'd better to keep recharter description written by Behcet for now. As
you said, this will be confirmed by IESG.

In this sense, I support revised charter.

>> <mailto:[email-masked]**>>
>>
>>
>>    Hi Seil,
>>
>>    ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--
>>    ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--
>>     >
>>     > Seil Jeon
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > Homepage: http://sites.google.com/site/**seiljeon<http://sites.google.com/site/seiljeon>
>>     >
>>     > LinkedIn:
>>    http://www.linkedin.com/**profile/view?id=150370825&trk=**tab_pro<http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=150370825&trk=tab_pro>
>>    <http://www.linkedin.com/**profile/view?id=150370825&trk=**tab_pro<http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=150370825&trk=tab_pro>
>> >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>    <mailto:[email-masked]**>>
>>
>>     >>
>>     >> Hi all,
>>     >>
>>     >> ______________________________**_________________
>>     >> multimob mailing list
>>     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/multimob<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>
>>
>>     >>
>>     >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> multimob mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/multimob<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>
>>
>
>

---

From: Sérgio Figueiredo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:03:16 +0100

Hi Behcet, Stig, all,

I agree with Seil. Due to the strong interest shown in the latest 
meeting, I think the best option is to include one some reference to DMM.
So, the charter proposed by Behcet seems to cope with this.

Best regards,

Sérgio

-- 
----------------------------------------------
Sérgio Figueiredo
----------------------------------------------
Advanced Telecommunications and Networks Group
IT-Aveiro
----------------------------------------------

On 04/24/2012 08:06 PM, Seil Jeon wrote:
> 2012/4/24 Stig Venaas <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>
> Regarding on putting DMM related proposal, I remember we got a 
> positive signal in Paris meeting.
> So we'd better to keep recharter description written by Behcet for 
> now. As you said, this will be confirmed by IESG.
>         <mailto:[email-masked]>
>         <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>>
>
>
>            Hi Seil,
>
>            On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Seil Jeon
>         <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>         <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>> wrote:
>         > Hi Behcet,
>         >
>         <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=150370825&trk=tab_pro
>         <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=150370825&trk=tab_pro>>
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         <mailto:[email-masked]>
>         <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>>
>
>         >>
>         >> Hi all,
>         >>
>         <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>