You make a very clear case. I think this work item
should be on the working group charter. It is good
that you would otherwise sponsor it. I expect that
the discussion of the specification would anyway
transpire on the [netlmm] mailing list.
Jari Arkko wrote:
(Replies to netlmm WG list and me, please)
This working group's new charter is under consideration by the IESG.
The new charter has been approved except for one issue. During the
comment period we received a request from Julien Laganier to add a
work item to the charter, a heartbeat functionality. Please see below
for the details.
This work item was discussed in the working group as well, but like
many other proposals, was not adopted to the final charter that got
sent to the IESG. (This was not so much a question of lack of support,
but lack of clear choice from the WG to choose a small number of items
to work on in addition to the ones already in the new charter. I had
asked the WG to not work on everything at the same time...)
What's changed now then? Julien writes that this functionality has
been adopted for the new LTE network design by 3GPP, is going to be
added to the official dependency list, and I know it will be
implemented by several parties. Is this a sufficient reason to add
this as an official work item to the WG?
Note: I have already agreed to AD sponsor this document if it does not
end up in the charter. However, there are design decisions that would
be better run in the WG, in my opinion. So I would prefer to put this
work item to the new charter.
Does anyone object to this addition? Please comment before Friday 25th
July, 8AM GMT.
Julien Laganier wrote:
The 3GPP WG CT4 has added during last meeting in June (CT4#39bis) a
dependency for a "PMIPv6 path management and failure detection"
feature such as the one defined in
draft-devarapalli-netlmm-pmipv6-heartbeat to its 3GPP TS 29.275
v1.0.0 "PMIPv6 based Mobility and Tunneling protocols" for which I'm
acting as a rapporteur, see:
This feature is crucial to align of PMIPv6-based 3GPP interfaces to
the GTP-based interfaces by relying on IETF-developed extensions,
rather than 3GPP Vendor Specific extensions, which would benefit
neither IETF nor 3GPP, IMHO.
I'd thus like to request that an additional deliverable be added to
the the charter, and I'm proposing below some strawman text:
8) PMIPv6 path management and failure detection: This will define an
extension to the PMIPv6 protocol allowing PMIPv6 peers to verify
bidirectional reachability with their peer, detect failure of their
peer, and signal their own failure to their peer.
netlmm mailing list
Ietf mailing list