1 / 10

NEMO Working Group Base Draft: Status and the Future

Learn how to use PowerPoint to keep track of action items during your presentation. This presentation will involve audience discussion, which will create action items. You can easily record these action items and automatically create an Action Item slide at the end of your presentation.

dlucia
Download Presentation

NEMO Working Group Base Draft: Status and the Future

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. This presentation will probably involve audience discussion, which will create action items. Use PowerPoint to keep track of these action items during your presentation • In Slide Show, click on the right mouse button • Select “Meeting Minder” • Select the “Action Items” tab • Type in action items as they come up • Click OK to dismiss this box • This will automatically create an Action Item slide at the end of your presentation with your points entered. NEMO Working GroupBase Draft: Status and the Future TJ Kniveton IETF56

  2. Base Drafts so far.. • Drafts of varying levels of protocol detail have been submitted individually • We have had discussion on most/all of them on the list, by a active group members • The final delivery date is August ‘03 • Security requirements are also due May 03

  3. Attention Areas • Draft-wakikawa is a new draft; the rest have already been presented • Given the current submissions, do we have a sufficient and thorough consideration of technical alternatives? • Many creative ideas are present for optimization. But for the base case, we have a status quo with reverse MRHA tunneling. Right? • Q: Can we proceed with the current state of requirements, and finish reqs in parallel with beginning editing of the draft?

  4. Schedule • Deadline for base spec is August • We have only one more IETF meeting before this deadline • More detailed scheduling is in process to get us to this goal, but the basic point is, we require a starting point and push now.

  5. Deliveries • Basic draft must be • Consistent with Requirements draft • Least restrictive to allow new applications in the future • A design that can be changed by the author/editor to reflect wg consensus • Able to be polished and complete by 8/03 • What is the confidence factor for each of these points? • Drafts and process now in place to fit these

  6. Analysis • Petrescu, et al (Motorola) • draft-petrescu-nemo-mrha-02 • This draft analyzes issues with MR-HA tunneling approach and other approaches • How many people have read this document?

  7. Opinions on a starting point for draft-nemo • Have people read the drafts? • What are the opinions? Are we ready to decide on which text to begin with? • Would you favor a certain draft as a starting point? • A. draft-wakikawa-nemo-basic-00 • B. draft-kniveton-mobrtr-03 (MRTP) • C. draft-ernst-mobileip-v6-network-03 • D. Other draft..?

  8. Feedback for editing goals • Comments from draft authors: how many drafts are implemented/implementable? • It may not be possible to “combine” base solution drafts, since they have different elements. • To what extent should features be added to the starting point text from other drafts? • Are any of those features already obvious?

  9. Choosing a Starting Point • Based on past discussions and draft analysis, is the WG comfortable choosing a text starting point now? • Yes / No • Suggestion: Start with MRTP; have draft authors collaborate on editing • Yes / No

  10. Goals for IETF57 • Hopefully, we have already determined a starting point • Next step is to begin editing the starting text • Issues with the text will be identified and discussed on the list as usual • WG consensus will determine changes to base spec in controversial areas • Discussion of base spec editing will probably be concurrent with Route Optimization issue discussion/identif.

More Related