Re: [802.21] IETF References (As per my action item)
One more 3GPP2 reference:
3GPP2 S.R0087-0, Version 1.0, Version Date: 22 July 2004, 3GPP2 - WLAN
Interworking Stage 1 Requirements
There is one more UMTS phy layer measurements TS I am looking for.
Peretz Feder
Peretz Feder wrote:
>
> Vivek:
>
> For 3GPP2 references please add C.S0005-D, Upper Layer (Layer 3) Signaling
> Standard for cdma2000 Spread Spectrum Systems, February, 2004.
>
> For 3GPP references please add 3GPP TS 25.331 V5.8.0 (2004-03) Technical
> Specification Group Radio Access Network; Radio Resource Control (RRC)
>
> and
>
> 3GPP TS 25.303 V5.1.0 (2002-06) Technical Specification Group Radio Access
> Network; Interlayer procedures in Connected Mode.
>
> Peretz Feder
>
> Greg Daley wrote:
> >
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > Just to clarify a small point in your description.
> >
> > NJEDJOU Eric RD-RESA-REN wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Fast Handovers for 802.11 is not currently "Standards Track", as it
> > relies upon "draft-ietf-mipshop-fast-mipv6-02.txt" which is aimed
> > to become an "Experimental" RFC. It is therefore an "Experimental"
> > RFC.
> >
> > Experimental RFC's are valid for proving new ideas (many TCP related
> > RFCs were in wide use while still remaining 'Experimental' for a
> > long time before moving to Standards Track.
> >
> > The maturity of the Fast Handovers proposals is fairly good, and
> > there's a good chance of them making such a transition.
> >
> > Several Documents within the DNA working group which are aimed at
> > Standards Track will make use of Link-Layer Event Notifications
> > (probably synonymous with triggers) as input to configuration
> > detection processes. As Eric mentioned though, these are
> > mainly aimed at Link-Up/Link-Down indications at the moment, and
> > are earlier in their life cycle than Fast Handovers documents.
> >
> > > *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
> >
> > Good Luck with the meeting.
> >
> > Greg Daley