|
Ajay,
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.
[Stefano] indeed. We actually have just made a minor amendment to the
charter so that we now have a problem statement draft, so that the
requirements coming from 802.21 can have an official home in
MIPSHOP.
Stefano
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?
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
|