Hello ad-hoc
folks,
During the last
ad-hoc conf call, i have taken the action point of providing a "complete" list
of Internet Drafts and RFC pertaining to triggers. The result of my
investigation is the following list that indicates references to documents that
are not listed in the present version of the Requirements documents.
This gives a figure of 17 references (if added to the already
mentionned)
1.Pete McCan Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers
for 802.11 Networks, draft-ietf-mipshop-80211fh-01.txt, July
2004
2.Daniel Soohong Park, Eric Njedjou, Nicolas Montavont, L2 Triggers Optimized Mobile IPv6 Vertical Handover
draft-daniel-mip6-
optimized-vertical-handover-00.txt, February 2004
3.Layer-2 API for paging,
Sridhar
Gurivireddy, draft-guri-seamoby-paging-triggers-00.txt,
October 2001
4.JinHyeock Choi , Fast Router Discovery with AP Notification
draft-jinchoi-l2trigger-fastrd-01.txt, June 2002
5.Kamel Baba et al.
Fast Handoff L2 Trigger API, draft-singh-l2trigger-api-00.txt, September
2002
6.R.J Jayabal,
Context transfer and fast Mobile IPv6 Interactions in a layer-2 source triggered
anticipative handover, draft-rjaya-ct-fmip6
-l2st-ant-ho-00.txt,
7. Scott Corson, a Triggered
Interface, draft-corson-triggered-00.txt May November
2002
8.Carl
Williams, Alper E. Yegin, and James Kempf, Problem Statement for Link-layer
Triggers, draft-williams-l2-probstmt-00.txt June 2002
Comment 1: Internet
Drafts validity
As you
can see, added to the already present list, we come up with an
impressive list of references. And i have restricted myself to indicating only
the documents that directly address the triggers problem. There a dozen others
talking about fast handovers, context transfer...etc which some are indicated in
the Req Document already. Another point is that all of the above documents
expect one (the first) have expired and have been deleted from the
internet drafts repository. This is why the list is not exhaustive as once
Internet Drafts have been deleted, the only way to retrieve them is to
search into private repositories that don't provide the guarantee of
completeness. An IETF draft has a lifetime of 6 months and expires if
either a new version is not submitted within the 6 months following its
publication or the document has not been considered for evolution on the
standard track.
Comment 2:
history of triggers at IETF
There are no RFCs
pertaining to triggers. There is an long history of attempts to standardize
triggers within the IETF. But all of them have failed: A first attempt
to drive people attention on the subject was made with the incentive
of people from the IP mobility community during the 53th IETF meeting in
March 2003 in Minneapolis where an informal BAR-BOF was held. The concern
at that time was already to try to bring a solution to the problem of latency as
could be experienced when running Mobile IP on certain links especially the
wireless ones, when indications from link layers were not made to MIP. The
BAR-BOF discussions did not lead to the set up of a Working
Group. Since, interest has grown, then faded again but no group
within the IETF between Seamoby, Mobile IP, has ever been willing to carry a
standardization effort. DNA has recently expressed the will to have a catalogue
of link events that could help the process of detecting the attachment to a
network.The DNA catalogue is therefore for a narrow
use.
FInally MOBOPTS
(sort of open forum within the IETF has been receiving suggestions but has not
mandate to standardize anything as it is only a group from the IRTF (Research
Task Force) not very active.
The only document
currently on standard track (liable to become an RFC) and that have a vague
relation to 802.11 triggers is the first reference in the above list from the
MIPSHOP Working Group.
Comment 3:
IETF wary of link stuffs
The IETF has always
been wary of link layers stuffs and especially triggers as a network layer
focused population not really at ease with L2 things. Expectations have
therefore always been to see such SDOs as IEEE or 3GPP take into account
their will to have access technologies (IEEE 802.11, GPRS...) being
modified in a way to optimize the operation of the protocols they design.
therefore IMHO, those expectations can not take the form of references
for 802.21. It would have to be the other way round once 21
will have produced its standard
Suggestion:
As a consequence of
the above remarks, i would suggest not listing any document instead of
having 17 references from individual submissions that have expired, have
no normative value (RFC) or not looked at by any IETF Working
Group to become so except the first in the above
list.
An appropriate thing
would be to request an official liaison with the IETF or have
them produce a document (informational RFC for instance) that capture
their expectations of what 802.21 should contain to satisfy the need of their
layer3 mobility protocols.(Mobile IP, Fast Handoffs, HIP...). In that way we
will be sure we meet "official" expectations rather than individual ones in the references we have.
The IETF is
familiar with this process as they have
already submitted submitted such information RFCs for consideration by the
3GPP
See you
tommorrow