RE: [802.21] Question about IEEE 802.21 PAR
Tony,
I don't disagree with you, perhaps it's a matter of terminology and I apologize if I used the wrong terminology. Please note that I don't state that 802.21 PAR is a vehicle to develop a L3 protocol in IETF. My statement is that even with the current PAR I do not see any conflict if 802.21 members get involved with influencing activities in IETF.
Stefano
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 02:38
> To: Faccin Stefano (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
> Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802.21] Question about IEEE 802.21 PAR
>
>
> I think you have to be clear about what a PAR is, and what it is not.
>
> A PAR is basically permission to do a specific piece of work within a
> standards body sanctioned by the IEEE, where "piece of work" means a
> standard, a guide, or a recommended practice. In other words,
> a PAR is
> authorization to write an IEEE standards document.
>
> A PAR is NOT granted to facilitate or influence work in other
> (non-IEEE)
> standards fora; therefore the 802.21 PAR is not, and never will be, a
> vehicle to "develop a L3 protocol ... in IETF". The IETF has its own
> analogous mechanisms for sanctioning their standards development
> activities, and they don't need ours.
>
> Working groups in 802 can, and indeed very often do, get involved in
> liaison activities aimed at ensuring that the work they do
> (under their
> PARs) is relevant, and aimed at influencing other organizations to do
> complimentary pieces of work, but there is no mechanism
> whereby we can set
> up a project, or modify an existing project, such that its
> scope is to get
> a piece of work done elsewhere.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 07:02 24/08/2005, stefano.faccin@nokia.com wrote:
> >Ajoy,
> >one question for clarification. I do not disagree with your
> comments on
> >the PAR. However, I am not sure at all why you see the PAR
> in conflict
> >with or not allowing to "develop a L3 protocol ... in IETF".
> Even if the
> >PAR does not state it explicitly, that does not mean that
> the group cannot
> >contribute to the development of solutions in IETF.
> Specifically, I'm not
> >sure how you go from saying "develop a L3 protocol ... in
> IETF" to saying
> >"influence development of L3 mobility management protocol in
> IETF". I may
> >be missing something here, but I have not witnessed any
> efforts whatsoever
> >of 802.21 in trying to influence the design of any L3
> mobility mechanisms.
> >If you're referring to the work related to 802.21 that will
> take place in
> >MIPSHOP, please be aware that work is not about designing a mobility
> >management protocol or modifying an existing one. It is
> about developing
> >solutions to allow deployment of 802.21 services with a
> transport and
> >architecture @ L3 and above. Such soluti!
> > ons shall be usable with existing mobility protocols. Such
> solution can
> > be based on existing protocols if any exist that match the
> requirements.
> > I hope we do not need to go once again through the whole
> discussion that
> > took place before the last MIPSHOP meeting and at the
> MIPSHOP meeting.
> >
> >Stefano
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ext Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:ASINGH1@MOTOROLA.COM]
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:17
> >To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: [802.21] Question about IEEE 802.21 PAR
> >
> >
> >
> >Hi Ajay / All,
> >
> >
> >
> >I have a procedural question about 802.21 PAR. Please
> clarify if I missed
> >something
> >
> >as I was not part of PAR discussion. I asked this question during L3
> >conference call today,
> >
> >but we could not complete the discussion. I am just
> wondering if current
> >802.21 PAR allows
> >
> >us to develop a L3 protocol or influence development of L3 mobility
> >management protocol in IETF.
> >
> >Based upon my understanding of PAR, 802.21 is going to
> define mechanisms
> >that would
> >
> >facilitate existing higher layer protocol such as Mobile /
> IP etc. to
> >optimize layer 3 handoff. Please see
> >
> >below a quote from PAR (
> >Five <http://www.ieee802.org/21/802_21_5Criteria.doc> Criteria doc):
> >
> >
> >
> >" This standard shall facilitate optimization of Mobile IP handover,
> >however this does not preclude the standard
> >
> >from being used to optimize handovers of other layer 3 protocols. "
> >
> >
> >
> >I would appreciate if you point me to appropriate sections
> of PAR that
> >enable us to influence the design of
> >
> >higher layer protocol as part of 802.21 activity. It is
> likely that I
> >missed something here as I was not involved in
> >
> >original PAR discussion. Also, see below a text from (Five
> Criteria Doc)
> >that I think was used to justify the
> >
> >PAR of current 802.21 work:
> >
> >
> >
> >" Handover is a common mechanism, present in many systems
> such as cellular
> >systems or 802.11 ESSs. Mobile IP,
> >
> >in both v4 and v6 forms, has shown that roaming across heterogeneous
> >systems is possible. Work in the IETF SEAMOBY,
> >
> >TRIGTRAN, CAPWAP/LWAPP projects has highlighted the need for greater
> >interaction between 802 MAC and PHY
> >
> >layers and a roaming layer 3 in order to coordinate smoother, faster
> >handovers. Accordingly it is clear that roaming within
> >
> >the confines of different 802 technologies is feasible and
> that approaches
> >that might be adopted for roaming at higher
> >
> >layers are feasible. Since the IETF has published in draft
> form, a role
> >that 802 networks can play in higher layer (above the LLC)
> >
> >handover it is clear that it is possible to incorporate such
> mechanisms
> >into the 802 framework.
> >
> >
> >
> >The proven ability to handover within 802.11 networks,
> within cellular
> >networks and within IP networks has proved a minimum
> >
> >set of capabilities for mobile technologies. The nature of
> message passing
> >protocols is such that the timing and passage of the
> >
> >messages is subject to observation and testing. Methods of testing
> >interruptions to established sessions while being handed
> over are well
> >established in telephony and data networking practices.
> >
> >
> >
> >Neither security algorithms nor security protocols shall be
> defined in the
> >specification. This does not preclude the propagation
> >
> >of authentication or authorization information to support network
> >detection and selection.
> >
> >
> >
> >This standard will provide services both across an 802 link
> and to upper
> >layers to
> >
> >* Facilitate the optimization of detection and
> selection of networks
> >
> >* Provide a source of extensible and semantically defined
> >information to facilitate optimized handover decision making
> >
> >* Provide a mechanism to access this information
> over an 802 link.
> >
> >* Provide triggers to upper layers
> >
> >
> >
> >So, should 't we be defining mechanisms that would enable
> the deployment
> >
> >of existing IETF protocols rather than trying to influence their
> >design? I guess IETF is anyway working to
> >
> >standardize various building blocks of Mobility Management
> protocols.
> >Anyway if we really
> >
> >want to influence IETF mobility management protocol design,
> perhaps we
> >should modify
> >
> >PAR to indicate this.
> >
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Ajoy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
>