RE: [802.21] Higher layer requirements for IETF: meeting minutes
Subir,
the bridge is different, please check previous e-mails (it was sent out on Thursday July 21).
Stefano
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Subir Das [mailto:subir@research.telcordia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:39
> To: Faccin Stefano (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
> Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] Higher layer requirements for IETF: meeting
> minutes
>
>
> Stefano,
> Thanks for the meeting notes. This is very helpful since I had to
> leave the conf . call
> earlier. Is the bridge info same for the next call?
>
> Regards,
> -Subir
>
> Stefano M. Faccin wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> >
>
>