(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.
Jari
Julien Laganier wrote:
IESG:
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:
<http://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0807&L=3gpp_tsg_ct_wg4&T=0&P=3346>
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.
Regards,
--julien
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf