IETF 54, NEMO BOF, 2002-07-15, 13:00 NEMO BOF MEETING MINUTES Thanks to Marco Molteni and Tony Johansson for taking the minutes. Merged by the chairs. 0. Introduction and agenda bashing (Hesham Solimam & Thierry Ernst) No comments. 1. Esham Soliman: charter presentation. Current draft charter available at http://www.nal.motlabs.com/nemo/nemo-charter.txt Q: : Seen from the network, does the Mobile Router look like a normal host? A: : Yes. Q: : Will the WG be ipv6 only or ipv4 also? A: It will be decided today. Q: : Not interested in v4 RO. Q: : How many people interested in v4? How many in v6? A: Hand count seemed to show the vast majority interested only in v6, but somebody interested in v4 also. Q: IPv4 support is needed for transition time. What is your opinion about it? A: : We will also consider NGTRANS issues (eg v6 connectivity in a v4 cloud). Q: : Maybe we should consider basic support for IPv4, and basic and advanced support for IPv6. A: : On the NEMO mailing list there is not a lot of people interested in v4. Q: : People who want v4 support should make a proposal for v4. A: A few people seems to be willing to volunteer for the needed work for basic IPv4, so basic IPv4 will also be included. Q: RO for Both v6 and v4? A: Hand count seemed to show consensus for only v6 RO. R: Basic support for IPv4 will be added to the charter. Q: : The WG should consider handling IPsec between MNs, for example IKE quick mode. A: : The requirements (Ed: say or should say?) that NEMO must be transparent to IPsec. Q: : When will the WG consider the case of a MN moving in a NEMO? A: Transparent mobility is considered in the charter; also RO will be involved. A: : A MN that is not NEMO-aware should behave as a plain MIPv6 MN. Q: : Will the WG consider the case of movement between different administrative domains? A: : For the moment we don't see special problems for this; it might involve PANA but we don't make distinctions between domains. Q: : Seen from the charter presentation and the goals & milestones presentation, do we think that a working group should be started? A: Hand count seemed to show consensus for a YES. Nobody says no. 2. Thierry Ernst: Terminology Update. draft-ernst-monet-terminology-01.txt Q: : Nesting networks should be included. A: : Yes and this is already included in the current terminology and requirement drafts. 3. TJ Kniveton and Pascal Thubert: Summary of discussion on the ML about Issues/Requirements Part by TJ Kniveton: No questions. Part by Pascal Thubert: Q: : Pascal could you please explain better RO (Route Optimization)? Does everyone agree on RO as described? A: : explains better. Nobody comments on this. Part by TJ Kniveton: Conclusions. (same slides as before) Q: : In basic case, let's say I have a PAN, I get into my car, my car gets into a ferry. Make sure that the ferry doesn't go to the Internet thru my PAN! A: : Good point, we will assure this; AAA for NEMO is a work item. 4. General discussion and opinions on moving forward Q: : Any new ideas/issues for discussion? A: : We are happy to write a v4 draft. Will the WG consider it? Q: : You should write it and sent it to the NEMO mailing list for discussion.