RE: [802.21] IETF Drafts
Srini,
I like the previous option better. I think the second suggestion perhaps
can be interpreted that 802.21 wants IETF to define a AAA type of
protocol for tunneling 802.21 MIH protocol. I am not sure if I would
like to support that view in IETF though at this point of time. Also, it
is better to be simple and straight forward otherwise it will confuse
IETF folks.
Regards,
Ajoy
-----Original Message-----
From: Srinivas Sreemanthula [mailto:Srinivas.Sreemanthula@NOKIA.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:15 PM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts
Subir,
May be the other way to ask ourselves is - are these drafts not aligned
with 802.21 WG thinking wrt L3 solutions? For example, the drafts carry
the important message that the 802.21 MIH service protocol is defined in
802.21 and only the transport is required from the IETF. Accordingly,
the drafts were written in such a way there is no mention of any
protocol functionality or the information carried as part of the
protocol. The drafts show that the focus of the work in IETF is the
transport design and other functions like discovery and security which
are not covered in 802.21. For this, we spent enormous time to define
the transport requirements and "agreed" on those and incorporated in the
drafts.
If there are parts that deviate from this core message, we should list
them out for the benefit of the authors. I am not sure if we need to
align on a word-to-word basis with some voting process to approve this
work. This is unnecessary especially since we may have to update later
with feedback from various sources and voting everytime for those
changes in 802.21 is a bit of a stretch. This is one of the reasons we
did not seek voting for this in 802.21.
Regardless of the level of support, these drafts will be used to develop
solutions in MIPSHOP for MIH services. We can leave it at "partial
support" but the transport requirements for IS and ES/CS were discussed
extensively and agreed by the group. I think at least that part has
"full support". WRT Problem statement draft, I ask the same question as
above, how does it differ from our WG thinking?
regards,
Srini
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Subir Das [mailto:subir@research.telcordia.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:19 AM
>To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
>Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts
>
>Srini,
>Thanks for asking this. I would say # 2 is more appropriate
>at this moment with minor modification.
>
>2. Discussed and contains some feedback from IEEE 802.21 members
>
>I would agree with you that we should represent 802.21 view
>and seek for WG support. IMO, we need more work and
>participation within 802.21 WG to make that happen.
>
>regards,
>-Subir
>
>
>
>
>>
>>In the current state, I would like to know exactly what to say with
>>respect to carrying IEEE 802.21's message in the drafts in the March
>>IETF meeting. I see three options.
>>
>>1. Entirely author's view (weak to no support) 2. Discussed and
>>contains feedback from IEEE 802.21 members (partial
>>support)
>>3. Agreed by 802.21 (support)
>>
>>I would like the WG to keep in mind that internet-drafts submitted by
>>individuals are the only way to present work items into the IETF. For
>>both 802.21 and IETF, these drafts hold more ground if they represent
>>the 802.21 view.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Srini
>>
>>
>