RE: IETF References (As per my action item)
Hello Eric, folks,
I have couple of comments below...
...
> 8.Carl Williams, Alper E. Yegin, and James Kempf, Problem Statement
for
> Link-layer Triggers, draft-williams-l2-probstmt-00.txt June 2002
I'd add two more:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yegin-dna-l2-hints-01.txt (I'm
guessing this is already in the other list you were referring to)
http://yegin.org/alper/draft-yegin-l2-triggers-00.txt
I think it'd be useful to categorize I-Ds as those that are simply using
the triggers, and those that are defining and managing triggers.
> Comment 2: history of triggers at IETF
> There are no RFCs pertaining to triggers.
If we are talking about the second category, I think the first reference
above is the only candidate to become one.
> 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.
IMO, aside from the difficulty to define link-layer stuff at IETF, the
challenge has also been how to use them. For example, using L2
information to impact transport layer sessions had many issues.
In DNA WG, we are taking a very simple and focused approach on using L2
information. Using a small subset on a well-defined problem space. I
perceive this as the official entry of L2 triggers into the IETF system.
My hope is that it'll incrementally grow out of that effort (not in DNA
WG, but elsewhere in IETF and IRTF). [btw, we don't call it "triggers"
but "link-layer event notifications" now.....just a terminology
difference.]
> 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.
Except yegin-dna-l2-hints...
> 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
Liaison is a good idea. I thought there were already talks on that...
Anyways, from IETF side I think at least DNA, MIPSHOP and MOBOPTS should
be involved.
Regards,
Alper
>
> See you tommorrow
>
> Eric Njedjou Ntonfo