1. DIME WG @IETF #74 Jouni Korhonen draft-ietf-dime-pmip6 draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing

2. draft-ietf-dime-pmip6 Version -01 out recently. Mainly editorials, clarifications and aligning with the SDOs that wish to use this I-D. WGLC ended 21-Mar-09 with hardly any comments.. Non-editorial changes – Added Service-Configuration grouped AVP to carry service + LMA pairs. – Bunch of clarifications about the use of Service-Selection AVP. – Added new text explaining the relationship between PMIP6 mobility sessions and Diameter sessions. Concerns especially LMA-HA interactions. – Removed the application & new commands between LMA-HA. This is to allow more flexibility and alignment with intended use of this I-D. Question received: Should the I-D have signaling flows?

3. draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing 1/2 Version -01 out some time ago and WGLC ended 23-Feb-09. – Received several comments on the applicability of NAI routing in general. Settled down to a general acceptance that the I-D is needed ;) – Received a review (by Avi) after the WGLC that effectively proposes a new “algorithm” for NAI routing handling. – Some more work is probably needed as pointed by Avi’s review.. e.g. revising the NAI decoration processing on each hop..

4. draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing 2/2 About two NAI routing approaches: 1) Orig. modify Destination-Realm and User-Name – Has an issue of “early consumption” of the request when entering a realm that has no idea of NAI decoration 2) Alt. modify User-Name, keep Destination-Realm – Has an issues of being prone for routing loops when entering a realm that has no idea of NAI decoration – Has an issue of not “consuming” NAI decoration completely when a request goes through realms that has no idea of NAI decoration Both issues for 1) and 2) can be at least solved by defining a new application when NAI decoration is used.. Approach 2) closer has better chances of delivering requests to the final destination when entering a realm that has no idea of NAI decoration Do we need to modify the original approach? Probably the combination of 1) and 2) is a way forward..?

5. Questions & comments?