Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802.21] IETF Drafts



Title:
Hi Ajay,


From: ext Ajay Rajkumar [mailto:ajayrajkumar@lucent.com]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 7:59 AM
To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts

It seems that the discussion stems primarily from two issues.

1. Whenever 802.21 in the past, has spoken about sending official requirements or the problem statement that would be covered by the 802.21-IETF liaison, we have been told that an IETF WG does not take requirements from an external SDO. However, the sentiment on the MIPSHOP reflector seems to indicate otherwise and participants do seem to want to know the official view. This is very encouraging.
 
Srini> True.
 
2. The authors of some of these individual drafts have taken special effort to explain and emphasize to 802.21 WG that these drafts do not want to be restricted to the 802.21 problem and want to address a much broader scope. With that in mind, could one could get a tacit approval of the WG? Also, what would the approval be for - drafts as they stand or the subset of the draft that matches the current understanding of the .21 problem statement?
 
Srini> I would think the latter. The IS and ES/CS drafts include the requirements that were "official" outputs of the adhoc teams (although it was never voted for or against), the rest of the information is general discussion, usage models and scenarios. There is only security and discovery sections that we have not discussed in 802.21, everything else has been discussed in 802.21 at one time or the other. The problem statement draft presents problem in a manner that is consistent with 802.21 thinking on how IETF should be involved and provide solutions.

For the 802.21 WG approval, may be the larger scope first needs to be sufficiently motivated within the .21 membership.

Best Regards,
-ajay

Srinivas Sreemanthula wrote:
Yoshi,
  
I am afraid some people including myself do not share the same 
view as yours on this matter.  Please see the last slide of 
attached IETF Liason Report that was presented in Denver 
meeting.  I confirmed with Ajay about the content of the 
slides before I present.
    

I agree that it is applicable only if one asked if there are any
objections to these drafts. At that point, presenting as individual
draft was okay. I am bringing this discussion due to the comments I saw
in MIPSHOP ML about what official poistion 802.21 has about this.

  
But saying something that may be different from others view is 
even worse.  That's why I am responding as a liaison to IETF.
    

I see there is interest to disucss more about these drafts in the WG. I
am encouraging to start the discussion now about what is and what is not
aligned with .21 view. We may not be able to update the draft by next
week but we can make exceptions when we present the drafts in MIPSHOP.

Regards,
Srini

  
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba@tari.toshiba.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:08 PM
To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts

On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 02:40:49PM -0600, Srinivas Sreemanthula wrote:
    
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.
      
I am afraid some people including myself do not share the same 
view as yours on this matter.  Please see the last slide of 
attached IETF Liason Report that was presented in Denver 
meeting.  I confirmed with Ajay about the content of the 
slides before I present.

    
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.
      
But saying something that may be different from others view is 
even worse.  That's why I am responding as a liaison to IETF.

Yoshihiro Ohba


    
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