Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts
Qiaobing,
I fully support your proposal on having Annex on IETF requirements as
informative.
Best regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:35:43AM -0600, Qiaobing Xie wrote:
> Yoshi,
>
> Please see my comments below.
>
> Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
>
> >This is an interesting suggestion for 802.21 WG to have long-term
> >control on the IETF requirements.
>
> What we want is a core set of *official* 802.21 transport requirements
> for MIH IS over higher layer protocols. Nothing can be called *official*
> until it is approved and change controlled (i.e., our Commentary
> process). Using annexes is the easiest way in 802.21 to do so in my view.
>
> >
> >Two questions:
> >
> >- Requirements for other external SDOs may come up after the 802.21
> >specification becomes a standard. If that happens, can we do the same
> >thing in the course of maintaining/updating the specification (e.g.,
> >in 802.21ma)?
> >
> >- Do we also need this approach for requirements to other WGs *within
> >IEEE802*?
>
> Using the core *official* 802.21 requirements as a base, any individual
> or external SDO can then develop an area-specific implementation
> strategy for meeting the 802.21 core requirements, including possible
> area-specific additional requirements, and area-specific interpretation
> and description text, etc. The individual or SDO will
> own that new text and claim responsibility for controlling and
> maintaining it. (For example, when an IETF draft becomes a working group
> item, IETF will own and change control it).
>
> If any modification or correction to the core 802.21 *official*
> transport requirements is identified after the publication of 802.21
> spec, it will be handled in the standard way IEEE spec correction is
> handled (via an Errata?).
>
> regards,
> -Qiaobing
>
> >
> >Regards,
> >Yoshihiro Ohba
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 10:51:46AM -0600, Qiaobing Xie wrote:
> >
> >>To make it clear and non-controversial, what probably needs to happen is
> >>as the follows (I use IS as example here):
> >>
> >>1. Define a clear set of .21 requirements for transporting IS over
> >>higher layer protocol (this has been mostly done with our previous
> >>ad-hoc discussions). Say, if we end up with 15 of them, name them R1 -
> >>R15.
> >>
> >>2. Open an Annex in .21 draft spec, say, Annex R: Requirements for
> >>transporting IS over higher layer protocol, where we will list R1 - R15.
> >>
> >>3. Discuss and approve this "Annex R" in .21 following the normal .21
> >>change control process.
> >>
> >>4. Then go to IETF (or ITU-T or whatever SDOs) and cite Annex R in .21
> >>draft spec as the official .21 requirements.
> >>
> >>regards,
> >>-Qiaobing
> >>
> >>
> >>Ajay Rajkumar wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>>
> >>>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
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>