RE: [802.21] IETF Drafts
Hi Yoshihiro,
I think major intention from Qiaobing's suggestion is to making a
baseline for moving forward.
I also strongly feel the need for moving forward not spinning the
circle continuously.
I am not so sure that anyone can make a good response to your
questions,
even though these are really good to think about.
Without concerning about the detailed procedure problems,
I am expecting your leadership as an official liaison and believe it
would work.
Thanks,
Junghoon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba@TARI.TOSHIBA.COM]
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 2:51 PM
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts
>
>
> This is an interesting suggestion for 802.21 WG to have
> long-term control on the IETF requirements.
>
> 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*?
>
> 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
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >