Presentation on theme: "Seamoby WG IETF 57 James Kempf, Docomo Labs USA Pat Calhoun, Airespace."— Presentation transcript:
Seamoby WG IETF 57 James Kempf, Docomo Labs USA Pat Calhoun, Airespace
Agenda ● Intro and Agenda Bashing (5 min) - chairs ● Draft Status (5 min) - chairs ● Issues with CTP (30 min) - John Loughney (draft-ietf-seamoby-ctp-03.txt) ● Issues with CAR (30 min) - Marco Liebsch (draft-ietf-seamoby-card-protocol-02.txt) ● ROHC Header Compression CT draft (20 min) – Rajeev Koodli for Manish Tiwari (draft-koodli-seamoby-hc-relocate-02.txt) ● Next Steps (10 min) - chairs
Draft Status ● draft-ietf-seamoby-mobility-terminology-04.txt – Publication requested on 5/20/2003. – Changed to AD Evaluation 6/23/2003 – AD Evaluation is (from draft tracker): A specific AD (e.g., the "Area Advisor" for the WG) has begun their review of the document to verify that it is ready for advancement. The shepherding AD is responsible for doing any necessary review before starting an IETF Last Call or sending the document directly to the IESG as a whole.
Draft Status ● draft-ietf-seamoby-card-protocol-02.txt – Marco and Ajoy (editors) working issues list. ● https://roundup.machshav.com/seamoby/index ● Please read and comment on unresolved issues! ● draft-ietf-seamoby-ctp-03.txt – John Loughney (editor) working issues list. ● ● Please read and comment on unresolved issues! ● Can we drop these? – draft-ietf-seamoby-ct-reqs-05.txt, – draft-ietf-seamoby-cardiscovery-issues-04.txt – draft-ietf-seamoby-card-requirements-02.txt
WG Chair Notice for CARD ● IESG sometimes adds text to a draft notifying users of unresolved issues with the draft. ● WG Chairs would like to add following brief note to CARD draft: The Working Group chairs recognize that there has been concern expressed about the complexity of CARD and about security related to the exchange of CAR information. The chairs believe that these are open issues, but that the solution process to resolving these issues should be open to experimentation, and therefore believe that approval of this document as experimental is an appropriate course for settling these issues, since collection of data and examination of alternative designs is best done within an experimental rather than a standardization context.
Next Steps ● CT and CARD Drafts: – Add resolved issues from this meeting to draft. – Resolve unresolved issues (if any) on list. – Try to complete WG Last Call by end of September. ● Vacations will intervene if we try to do it sooner. – Send to Seamoby Review Board for final review. – Submit to IESG by mid-October. ● ROHC HC CT Draft: – Rajeev will work with Carsten to incorporate concerns of ROHC. – Solicit dedicated reviewer in ROHC WG. – WG Last Call by end of September. – Submit to IESG by mid-October. ● No meeting at IETF 58 or going forward (go dormant). ● Move work to IRTF Mobility Research Group.