Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts

[Subir Das <subir@research.telcordia.com>]

Title:

Srini,
Thanks. Comments inline.

regards,
-Subir

Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com wrote:

Subir,

May be the other way to ask ourselves is - are these drafts not aligned
with 802.21 WG thinking wrt L3 solutions? 

     This is a valid question and  folks should express their opinion.

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.
  

     As I had indicated earlier,  current drafts contain more materials that what possibly required
     at this stage. Yes, we have  incorporated the  802.21 transport requirements but also added
     additional ones. There may be valid  reasons for that but  we need to convince the folks and
     appropriately scope it.  Otherwise, people will confuse and  deviate from the main  objectives.

If there are parts that deviate from this core message, we should list
them out for the benefit of the authors. 

    This is something  we possibly need to do  as authors. For example, in IS draft there is an explicit
     section on 802.21 scope, however, that part is missing in other two drafts.  On the other hand,
     in order to do this in a meaningful way,  we need  more comments from other members as well.  
    

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.
  

     This may not be required. A rough consensus should be ok, IMO.

Regardless of the level of support, these drafts will be used to develop
solutions in MIPSHOP for MIH services. 

    It all depends how  the discussion goes this time.  On the other hand, if we get .21 support it may
    be easier.

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?  
  

     You have asked the right question and people should  bring their points for discussion now. 

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
 

      

>