RE: [802.21] IETF Drafts
Hi Yoshi,
Thanks for the participation. I see you are emphasising for voting on
these drafts. Based on my particpation in 802.21 so far, I noticed that
voting happens only when there is no agreement. If no one objects, the
items are accepted without voting. Now based on the discussion within
the 802.21, I see no disagreement but several comments from active
members which were used to update the draft. Ofcourse, we could not
address the comments past the deadline.
As a liaison to IETF, I am sure you understand the importance of
providing a consistent message to MIPSHOP on this aspect. Individual
drafts are also okay in IETF (w/ no 802.21 support), but 80.21 must also
state what relation they have with these drafts. Saying nothing leads to
confusion in IETF, IMO.
Regards,
Srini
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba@tari.toshiba.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:54 PM
>To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
>Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts
>
>Hi Srini,
>
>On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 12:15:06PM -0600, Srinivas Sreemanthula wrote:
>> 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.
>
>I understand that the authors made a lot of efforts to create
>the drafts in a good shape and I see there is some level of
>concensus on the contents of the drafts. I really appreciate
>the work. On the other hand, as far as I understand IEEE802
>uses the term "agreed" for technical material only on voting
>basis, please correct if I am wrong.
>>
>> 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.
>
>Although I don't think we should vote word-to-word basis or
>vote on every version of the drafts, I believe at least
>initial official approval of 802.21 WG is a key to success,
>and I think it is not difficult to achieve this once the
>drafts are revised with more discussion in 802.21 WG.
>Ohterwise, I am afraid IETF people would ask the same question
>about 802.21 WG's official view of the drafts over and over,
>which could make IESG uncomfortable about the work.
>
>>
>> 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?
>
>The issue here is what does "support" or "agreement" exactly
>mean in an SDO like IEEE802 that is based on voting?
>
>Best regards,
>Yoshihiro Ohba
>
>>
>> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>