Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802.21] Higher layer requirements for IETF: new slides



Hi all, I made the changes discussed yesterday (I hope I captured everything). Comments are solicited and very welcome.
Stefano


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org]On
> Behalf Of ext Stefano M. Faccin
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 18:51
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802.21] Higher layer requirements for IETF: meeting minutes
> 
> 
> Please find enclosed the minutes of the 802.21 teleconference 
> on July 26. Please let me know if I missed any important 
> points. Srini, thank for taking electronic notes that I could 
> use to write up the minutes.
> BR,
> Stefano
> P.S. the next audio conference on the same topic is on July 
> 28 at 9PM EST, please check previous e-mails on reflector for details.
> 
> Purpose
> =======
> 802.21 Higher layer requirements for IETF 
> 
> Date
> ====
> July 26, 9am-11am EST.
> 
> Participants
> =========
> Alistair Buttar, Subir Das, Stefano Faccin, Peretz Feder, 
> Andrea Francini, Prasad Govindarajan, Eleanor Hepworth, 
> Benjamin Koh, Kalyan Koora, Hong-Yon Lach, Xiaoyu Liu, Andrew 
> McDonald, Yoshiro Ohba, Ajay Rajkumar, Reijo Salminen, Ajoy 
> Singh, Srinivas Sreemanthula, Qiaobing Xie
> (I apologize in advance if I missed somebody, as I'm sure I 
> did; also, i apologize for any mispelling)
> 
> Discussion
> ========
> *	Ajay summarized discussion that took place last week at 
> IEEE meeting regarding 802.21 and IETF
> *	the current result of the discuss with Gabriel 
> Montenegro (chair of MIPSHOP WG) is that the MIPSHOP is 
> willing to take up IS-related work through re-chartering. 
> Requirements would have to come from 802.21 WG. The MIPSHOP 
> WG chair made clear that ES and CS most probably do not fit 
> the MIPSHOP framework
> *	Ajoy brought up CARD applicability. It was agreed that 
> the L3 requirements are being worked out and the protocol 
> selection is out of scope at this time
> *	Stefano presented the high-level kickoff slides 
> (previously distributed)
> *	With respect to next IETF: Stefano indicates he will 
> give up the slot currently allocated to the Faccin/Daley ID 
> to present the requirements coming from 802.21. Also, a MIHEP 
> Bar BOF will take place to complement the 20min slot in 
> MIPSHOP at IETF meeting.
> *	Ajoy commented that ES and CS need not be on L3. No 
> real discussion took place, since it was agreed that present 
> focus (due urgency to provide requirements for IS to IEEE.
> *	The question of what is "L3 transport" came up. The 
> term may be misunderstood by IETF (e.g. Gabriel had indeed 
> misunderstood it), and there does not seem to be complete 
> consensus in 802.21 yet. Comments were raised that if by "L3 
> transport" for 802.21 we actually consider just transport 
> aspects, in theory 802.21 could define the protocol by itself 
> and then specify TCP or UDP transport, and ask IANA for 
> allocation of port numbers. 
> *	During the discussion it was indicated that by "L3 
> transport" we mean also architectural aspects such as 
> discovery of MIHF functions/capabilities and security (i.e. 
> aspects that are more protocol oriented)
> *	Discussion led to identifying three scenarios: (1) 
> 802.21 defines only IEs, IETF defines the transport aspects, 
> and no protocol definition takes place; (2) 802.21 defines 
> both the IEs and the protocol, and IETF defines the transport 
> aspects; (3) 802.21 defines the IEs, IETF defines the 
> transport aspects, and 802.21 and IETF collaborate in 
> defining the protocol. Security aspects are definitely 
> defined in IETF (out of scope for 802.21). discovery aspects 
> are defined by 802.21 and specified in IETF. Ajay also 
> indicated that the target at present is (2) or (3)
> *	Some parties commented that (3) is more in line with 
> the way IETF works
> *	As for discovery aspects, some parties indicated that 
> it can be part of work already on-going in other WGs, as an 
> extension of current discovery solutions or as part of host 
> configuration solutions
> *	Ajoy asked if we should first define the protocol 
> 802.21, then bring it to IETF. Stefano indicated that timing 
> is very important and that we should not miss the current 
> opportunity we have with MIPSHOP willing to re-charter to 
> include 802.21 aspects. Stefano reminded that the 
> re-chartering must close soon (Gabriel indicated he needs to 
> provide the new charter to the ADs just after the next IETF, 
> but Gabriel mentioned he can stay a bit vague to allow for 
> adjustments)
> *	Ajoy asked if #1 can be more suitable for the success 
> of 802.21, i.e. 802.21 would not need to have the work in 
> IETF completed before saying it has completed its duties. WG 
> think #3 would be better for the success.  Ajay reminded that 
> the success of 802.21 does not depend on completion of work in IETF
> *	Discussion about basic and extended information 
> service. Kalyan asked if the "L3 transport" is only for 
> extended-set? No, it is applied to all of IS, since in some 
> scenarios it is relevant only for extended IS, in some other 
> also for basic IS
> *	Ajoy raised a question if two MIH servers can talk to 
> each other. It is not clear if two MIH functions in network 
> can talk to each other. Yoshi mentioned there is no need for 
> such communication. Kalyan asked how e.g. is the neighbor 
> graph exchanged? Yoshi mentioned that transferring neighbor 
> graph is out of scope of 802.21. Peretz indicated that one 
> scenario is where MIH is proxied, e.g. MIHF in UE talks to an 
> MIHF in the network it is attached to, and the MIHF in the 
> network proxies MIH information to another MIHF e.g. in the 
> home network. It was mentioned this could be decided later, 
> but since it affects the L3 requirements, Stefano suggested 
> to assume that there "may" be communication between two MIH 
> functions and discuss this later in the emails. Qiaobing also 
> reminded this discussion is closely related to the model 
> discussion that took place at the meeting last week. Benjamin 
> reminded that the MIH model discussed at the ad-hoc was not 
> agreed yet by the whole WG.
> *	Stefano presented 3 scenarios to trigger discussion for 
> L3 requirements.
> *	Yoshi pointed #1 and #2 are similar. Another scenario 
> was proposed (and numbered as #4): no L3 protocol is used 
> between the MIHF in the terminal and the MIHF in the PoA, L2 
> is used instead, but then from MIHF in PoA and MIHF in the 
> network a L3 solution is used.  UE----L2--->sPoa---L3--->MIS
> *	Ajoy mentioned another scenario where 
> UE----L3--->sPoa----L3.---->cPoa or 
> UE----L3--->sPoa----L3---->MIH, Stefano replied it is a 
> subset of the current third scenario (but it will be 
> described explicitly)
> *	Ajay indicated that we still need to clarify to IETF 
> what we mean exactly by PoA, since it impacts this discussion 
> and may be confusing to IETF. Stefano suggested that a way 
> forward is to present to IETF example of PoAs, without 
> necessarily providing a comprehensive and exhaustive definition.
> *	Stefano indicates we need to consider two kinds of MIS 
> interface since requirements may be different and should be 
> at first looked separately (we can merge requirements if they 
> are the same)
> *		i) MIHF in UE to MIHF in network
> *		ii) MIHF in network to MIHF in network
> *	Qiaobing mentioned discovery should not be part of 
> transport requirements. It was emphasized that the discussion 
> is not just for plain transport (in IETF sense of the term) 
> but "L3 and above" requirements for MIIS. It was agreed this 
> needs ot be made very clear in slideset.
> *	Also, Qiaobing suggested that we separate the 
> requirements that relate only to transport from those that 
> relate to architectural/protocol aspects
> *	Hong-Yon asked why we are considering also protocol 
> requirements. Stefano indicated we should try to list all the 
> requirements we can come up with, then choose which one we 
> think are relevant for the discussion in IETF. 
> *	Stefano will send out new slideset for discussion on 
> mailing list.
> *	It was agreed to send contributions to requirements at 
> least 4 (four) hours before the next tele-conference so that 
> the input can be consolidated
> *	WG is encouraged to discuss and send scenarios and L3 
> requirements by next conf meeting on Thursday 9 PM EST. 
> 

802.21 Higher Layer requirements strawman_v0.2.zip