IETF 54, NEMO BOF, 2002-07-15, 13:00

NEMO BOF MEETING MINUTES

Thanks to Marco Molteni and Tony Johansson for taking the minutes. Merged by the chairs.


0. Introduction and agenda bashing  (Hesham Solimam & Thierry Ernst) 

   No comments.


1. Esham Soliman: charter presentation.
   Current draft charter available at 
   http://www.nal.motlabs.com/nemo/nemo-charter.txt

   Q: <Thomas Narten>: Seen from the network, does the Mobile Router look like a normal host?
   A: <Hesham Soliman>: Yes.

   Q: <Unknown>: Will the WG be ipv6 only or ipv4 also?
   A: It will be decided today.
   Q: <C. Huitema>: Not interested in v4 RO.
   Q: <Hesham Soliman>: How many people interested in v4? How many in v6?
   A: Hand count seemed to show the vast majority interested only in v6, but somebody interested in v4 also.
   Q: IPv4 support is needed for transition time. What is your opinion about it?
   A: <Pascal Thubert>: We will also consider NGTRANS issues (eg v6 connectivity in a v4 cloud).
   Q: <Gopal>: Maybe we should consider basic support for IPv4, and basic and advanced support for IPv6.   
   A: <TJ Kniveton>: On the NEMO mailing list there is not a lot of people interested in v4.
   Q: <Erik Nordmark>: People who want v4 support should make a proposal for v4.  
   A: A few people seems to be willing to volunteer for the needed work for basic IPv4, so basic IPv4 will also be included.
   Q: RO for Both v6 and v4?
   A: Hand count seemed to show consensus for only v6 RO.
   R: Basic support for IPv4 will be added to the charter.

   Q: <Unknown>: The WG should consider handling IPsec between MNs, for example IKE quick mode.
   A: <Esham Soliman>: The requirements (Ed: say or should say?) that NEMO must be transparent to IPsec.

   Q: <Unknown>: When will the WG consider the case of a MN moving in a NEMO?
   A: Transparent mobility is considered in the charter; also RO will be involved.
   
   A: <TJ Kniveton>: A MN that is not NEMO-aware should behave as a plain MIPv6 MN.

   Q: <Unknown>: Will the WG consider the case of movement between different administrative domains?
   A: <Esham Soliman>: For the moment we don't see special problems for this; it might involve PANA but we don't make distinctions between domains.

   Q: <Erik Nordmark>: Seen from the charter presentation and the goals & milestones presentation, do we think that a working group should be started?
   A: Hand count seemed to show consensus for a YES. Nobody says no.


2. Thierry Ernst: 
   Terminology Update.
   draft-ernst-monet-terminology-01.txt

   Q: <Steve Deering>: Nesting networks should be included.
   A: <Thierry Ernst>: Yes and this is already included in the current terminology and requirement drafts.


3. TJ Kniveton and Pascal Thubert: 
   Summary of discussion on the ML about Issues/Requirements  

 Part by TJ Kniveton:

   No questions.

 Part by Pascal Thubert:

   Q: <Esham Soliman>: Pascal could you please explain better RO (Route Optimization)? Does everyone agree on RO as described?
   A: <Pascal Thubert>: explains better. Nobody comments on this.


 Part by TJ Kniveton: Conclusions. (same slides as before)

   Q: <Steve Deering>: In basic case, let's say I have a PAN, I get into my car, my car gets into a ferry. Make sure that the ferry doesn't go to the Internet thru my PAN!
  
   A: <TJ Kniveton>: Good point, we will assure this; AAA for NEMO is a work item.


4. General discussion and opinions on moving forward

   Q: <Esham Soliman>: Any new ideas/issues for discussion?
   A: <Unknown>: We are happy to write a v4 draft. Will the WG consider it?
   Q: <Esham Soliman>: You should write it and sent it to the NEMO mailing list for discussion.