1. Seamoby – IETF 56 Pat Calhoun Airespace James Kempf DoCoMo Labs USA

2. Agenda Agenda discussion – chairs, 5 min. Draft status – chairs, 10 min. Open issues in CT design - John Loughney, 10 min. Discussion, 20 min. Open issues in CARD design - Ajoy Singh, 10 min. Issues with server-based design - Dirk Trossin, 10 min. Discussion - 20 min. Moving forward, chairs - 10 min. Discussion – 25 min.

3. Draft Status draft-ietf-seamoby-mobility-terminology-02.txt –Submit to IESG for publication as Informational after this meeting. draft-ietf-seamoby-context-transfer-problem-stat.txt –Published 9/2002. RFC 3374. draft-ietf-seamoby-cardiscovery-issues-04.txt –AD Evaluation 11/25/2002. No comments. draft-ietf-seamoby-ct-reqs-05.txt –AD Evaluation 1/31/2003. No comments. draft-ietf-seamoby-car-requirements-02.txt –Revised ID Needed 12/06/2002. Allison’s comments: Reviewed it carefully and it does not align well with the security comments from SMB and the complexity and architecture issues review that I gave in the 9/26 email to the mailing list. As the state says, a revision is needed, even though the protocol is under development. draft-ietf-seamoby-card-protocol-01.txt,draft-ietf- seamoby-ctp-01.txt –Under development by WG, to discuss today.

4. Moving Forward

5. CARD Architecture The Back End The Front End Learning based approach? Server based Approach? ICMP

6. Reorganization Freshness date is passed! –Going on 3 years since BOF, not much accomplished. Reorganize, complete work that can be done within 6 months.

7. CARD Reorganization Suggestion Use requirements draft as guidelines, drop publication. –Requirements aren’t helpful to guide research, research questions are. Framework for research on both server-based and learning-based approaches. –And possibly others. Focus on IPv6. Submit protocol to IESG for publication as Experimental after Vienna.

8. Proposal for Experimental Draft Complete CARD Front End in Seamoby. –Integrate FMIP and CARD signaling. –One Host to Router IETF protocol for CARD. Inter-router protocol Back End supporting both server based and learning based approachs. Later, if deployment interest, restart in INT Area for Proposed Standard.

9. Research Simulations to compare server-based and learning-based approaches. Develop design approaches to solve AP auth/authz problem. Utilize framework protocol to implement different approaches. Join with new Mobile IP IRTF Research Group. Return to IETF when problem better understood.

10. Context Transfer Interest? Decline in interest. No response on list to chairs’ extensive review of DT CT draft. Minor progress on draft since last IETF. Competition from IAPP for 802.11 reduces market interest. Is anybody interested in this work?

11. If Not… Let’s drop it.

12. If So… Use requirements draft as guidelines, drop publication. –Requirements aren’t helpful for guiding research, research questions are. Focus on IPv6. Complete protocol by Vienna. Submit to IESG for publication as Experimental after Vienna.