RE: [802.21] Question about IEEE 802.21 PAR
I think you have to be clear about what a PAR is, and what it is not.
A PAR is basically permission to do a specific piece of work within a
standards body sanctioned by the IEEE, where "piece of work" means a
standard, a guide, or a recommended practice. In other words, a PAR is
authorization to write an IEEE standards document.
A PAR is NOT granted to facilitate or influence work in other (non-IEEE)
standards fora; therefore the 802.21 PAR is not, and never will be, a
vehicle to "develop a L3 protocol ... in IETF". The IETF has its own
analogous mechanisms for sanctioning their standards development
activities, and they don't need ours.
Working groups in 802 can, and indeed very often do, get involved in
liaison activities aimed at ensuring that the work they do (under their
PARs) is relevant, and aimed at influencing other organizations to do
complimentary pieces of work, but there is no mechanism whereby we can set
up a project, or modify an existing project, such that its scope is to get
a piece of work done elsewhere.
Regards,
Tony
At 07:02 24/08/2005, stefano.faccin@nokia.com wrote:
>Ajoy,
>one question for clarification. I do not disagree with your comments on
>the PAR. However, I am not sure at all why you see the PAR in conflict
>with or not allowing to "develop a L3 protocol ... in IETF". Even if the
>PAR does not state it explicitly, that does not mean that the group cannot
>contribute to the development of solutions in IETF. Specifically, I'm not
>sure how you go from saying "develop a L3 protocol ... in IETF" to saying
>"influence development of L3 mobility management protocol in IETF". I may
>be missing something here, but I have not witnessed any efforts whatsoever
>of 802.21 in trying to influence the design of any L3 mobility mechanisms.
>If you're referring to the work related to 802.21 that will take place in
>MIPSHOP, please be aware that work is not about designing a mobility
>management protocol or modifying an existing one. It is about developing
>solutions to allow deployment of 802.21 services with a transport and
>architecture @ L3 and above. Such soluti!
> ons shall be usable with existing mobility protocols. Such solution can
> be based on existing protocols if any exist that match the requirements.
> I hope we do not need to go once again through the whole discussion that
> took place before the last MIPSHOP meeting and at the MIPSHOP meeting.
>
>Stefano
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:ASINGH1@MOTOROLA.COM]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:17
>To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: [802.21] Question about IEEE 802.21 PAR
>
>
>
>Hi Ajay / All,
>
>
>
>I have a procedural question about 802.21 PAR. Please clarify if I missed
>something
>
>as I was not part of PAR discussion. I asked this question during L3
>conference call today,
>
>but we could not complete the discussion. I am just wondering if current
>802.21 PAR allows
>
>us to develop a L3 protocol or influence development of L3 mobility
>management protocol in IETF.
>
>Based upon my understanding of PAR, 802.21 is going to define mechanisms
>that would
>
>facilitate existing higher layer protocol such as Mobile / IP etc. to
>optimize layer 3 handoff. Please see
>
>below a quote from PAR (
>Five <http://www.ieee802.org/21/802_21_5Criteria.doc> Criteria doc):
>
>
>
>" This standard shall facilitate optimization of Mobile IP handover,
>however this does not preclude the standard
>
>from being used to optimize handovers of other layer 3 protocols. "
>
>
>
>I would appreciate if you point me to appropriate sections of PAR that
>enable us to influence the design of
>
>higher layer protocol as part of 802.21 activity. It is likely that I
>missed something here as I was not involved in
>
>original PAR discussion. Also, see below a text from (Five Criteria Doc)
>that I think was used to justify the
>
>PAR of current 802.21 work:
>
>
>
>" Handover is a common mechanism, present in many systems such as cellular
>systems or 802.11 ESSs. Mobile IP,
>
>in both v4 and v6 forms, has shown that roaming across heterogeneous
>systems is possible. Work in the IETF SEAMOBY,
>
>TRIGTRAN, CAPWAP/LWAPP projects has highlighted the need for greater
>interaction between 802 MAC and PHY
>
>layers and a roaming layer 3 in order to coordinate smoother, faster
>handovers. Accordingly it is clear that roaming within
>
>the confines of different 802 technologies is feasible and that approaches
>that might be adopted for roaming at higher
>
>layers are feasible. Since the IETF has published in draft form, a role
>that 802 networks can play in higher layer (above the LLC)
>
>handover it is clear that it is possible to incorporate such mechanisms
>into the 802 framework.
>
>
>
>The proven ability to handover within 802.11 networks, within cellular
>networks and within IP networks has proved a minimum
>
>set of capabilities for mobile technologies. The nature of message passing
>protocols is such that the timing and passage of the
>
>messages is subject to observation and testing. Methods of testing
>interruptions to established sessions while being handed over are well
>established in telephony and data networking practices.
>
>
>
>Neither security algorithms nor security protocols shall be defined in the
>specification. This does not preclude the propagation
>
>of authentication or authorization information to support network
>detection and selection.
>
>
>
>This standard will provide services both across an 802 link and to upper
>layers to
>
>* Facilitate the optimization of detection and selection of networks
>
>* Provide a source of extensible and semantically defined
>information to facilitate optimized handover decision making
>
>* Provide a mechanism to access this information over an 802 link.
>
>* Provide triggers to upper layers
>
>
>
>So, should 't we be defining mechanisms that would enable the deployment
>
>of existing IETF protocols rather than trying to influence their
>design? I guess IETF is anyway working to
>
>standardize various building blocks of Mobility Management protocols.
>Anyway if we really
>
>want to influence IETF mobility management protocol design, perhaps we
>should modify
>
>PAR to indicate this.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Ajoy
>
>
>
>
>
>
Regards,
Tony