RE: [802.21] Question about IEEE 802.21 PAR
Stefano -
My point is that it is not a PAR issue at all.
Regards,
Tony
At 09:33 24/08/2005, you wrote:
>Tony,
>I don't disagree with you, perhaps it's a matter of terminology and I
>apologize if I used the wrong terminology. Please note that I don't state
>that 802.21 PAR is a vehicle to develop a L3 protocol in IETF. My
>statement is that even with the current PAR I do not see any conflict if
>802.21 members get involved with influencing activities in IETF.
>Stefano
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 02:38
> > To: Faccin Stefano (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
> > Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: 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
> >
> >
> >
Regards,
Tony