I received you message request for review, but there are some issues missing for my review. For example there is no milestones presented even though the submitted charter states below
"The working group may decide to extend the current milestones based on
the new information and knowledge gained during working on other
documents listed in the initial milestones. "
the new information and knowledge gained during working on other
documents listed in the initial milestones. "
Where are the initial milestone, the above statement refers to? did this WG decide on the milestones or not? When I review the WG production there is only one RFC and one adopted draft, while previous charters were aiming for more drafts. In first charter dated 2007 there were about three work items/drafts suggested without milestones which is ok because it is new but what happened? I want to know why we did not achieve that? an input from the AD can help.
Creating/Rechartering WGs while not having clear milestones will cost IETF. I need to see in your review request of charter/recharter the following so that I can make better review:
- if new WG, there can be no milestones decided, but need to have some individual drafts submitted for discussions and for future adoption plans.
- if new WG, there should be in the charter related works/RFCs in IETF that this WG will consider.
- if recharter WG, I need to know its evaluation of previous charter(s), and why recharter?
- if recharter WG, I need to know clear milestones (dates of submissions and date of conclude) and clear/stated adopted drafts and non adopted drafts that are under consideration.
- All WG charters MUST have a date of conclude/recharter, otherwise we may waste time/space/money in IETF.
- I prefer if the IETF charter has sections that are must and sections that are optional, so that we agree on how we review such charter. I think milestones are must for recharters and optional for new WG charter.
- I require for my best review for recharter, a review AD evaluation section for the WG's previous charter(s) and challenges.
Please note we need to take care with the charter details, the WG-decisions and then recharter review. Therefore, I object this WG to recharter until its WG decides the milestones and have clear work adoption plan related to drafts mentioned in the charter.
Regards,
AB
On Friday, October 3, 2014, The IESG wrote:
The Distributed Mobility Management (dmm) working group in the Internet
Area of the IETF is undergoing rechartering. The IESG has not made any
determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and isprovided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments tothe IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2014-10-13.
Distributed Mobility Management (dmm)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Active WG
Chairs:
Dapeng Liu <liudapeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@xxxxxxxxx>
Assigned Area Director:
Brian Haberman <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mailing list
Address: dmm@xxxxxxxx
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm
Charter:
Mobility management solutions lie at the center of the wireless Internet
and enable mobile devices to partake in IP networks anytime and
anywhere. The IETF Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group
(WG) specifies solutions for IP networks so that traffic between mobile
and correspondent nodes can take an optimal route. DMM solutions aim for
transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of active
transport level sessions when mobile hosts or mobile networks change
their point of attachment to the Internet.
Wireless network deployments have traditionally relied on hierarchical
schemes that often lead to centralized deployment models, where a small
number of mobility anchors manage both mobility and reachability for a
mobile node. The DMM WG will consider the latest developments in mobile
networking research and operational practice (i.e. flattening network
architectures, the impact of virtualization, new deployment needs as
wireless access technologies evolve in the coming years) and will
describe how distributed mobility management addresses the new needs in
this area better than previously standardized solutions.
A topic of particular focus will be mobility anchoring in this new
context, and the DMM working group is chartered to work on
maintenance-oriented extensions of the Mobile IPv6 protocol family (RFC
5213, RFC 5844, RFC 5555, RFC 5568, and RFC 6275) as well as new
approaches which capitalize on other protocols specified by the IETF.
For example, mobility management in a limited area, such as within an
autonomous system, is not strictly limited to mentioned IP mobility
protocols but can be any existing or a new protocol solution enabling
the movement of a mobile node such as routing protocols. When extending
protocols that are not based on Mobile IP, DMM solutions will have to be
reviewed by the corresponding WGs.
IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile host/router and the
access networks. DMM solutions are primarily targeted at IPv6
deployments and are not required to support IPv4, in particular for the
case where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs are used. DMM solutions
must maintain backward compatibility: If the network or the mobile
host/router does not support the distributed mobility management
protocol that should not prevent the mobile host/router gaining basic
access (i.e., nomadic) to the network.
Contrary to earlier IP mobility protocols, mobility management signaling
paths and end-user traffic forwarding paths may differ. Further,
mobility-related functions may be located in separate network nodes. DMM
solutions should not distinguish between physical or virtualized
networking functions. Whenever applicable, clarifications and additional
features/capabilities for specific networking function deployment
models, e.g. in virtualized environments, are in-scope and encouraged.
Solutions may also specify the selection between the care-of addresses
and home address(es)/prefix(es) for different application use cases.
The working group will produce both informational architectural and
standards track protocol solutions on the following work item topics.
o Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
describe the target high-level network architectures and
deployment models where distributed mobility management
protocol solutions would apply.
o Enhanced mobility anchoring: define protocol solutions for a
gateway and mobility anchor assignment and mid-session mobility
anchor switching that go beyond what has been specified, for
example, in RFC 6097, 6463, and 5142. Traffic steering
associated with the anchor switch is also in-scope if deemed
appropriate.
o Forwarding path and signaling management: the function
that handles mobility management signaling interacts with the
DMM network elements for managing the forwarding state
associated with a mobile node's IP traffic. These two functions
may or may not be collocated. Furthermore, the forwarding state
may also be distributed into multiple network elements instead
of a single network element (e.g., anchor). Protocol extensions
or new protocols will be specified to allow the above mentioned
forwarding path and signalling management.
o Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network nodes:
define solutions that allow, for example, mobile nodes to select
either a care-of address or a home address depending on an
application' mobility needs. In order to enable this
functionality, the network-side control functions and other
networking nodes must also be able to exchange appropriate
control information, as well as to the mobile nodes and their
applications.
The working group may decide to extend the current milestones based on
the new information and knowledge gained during working on other
documents listed in the initial milestones. Possible new documents and
milestones must still fit into the overall DMM charter scope as outlined
above.
Milestones: