RE: [802.21] FW: [Mipshop] new charter
Hi Hong-Yon,
> Salut Stefano,
>
> To my knowledge, the 802.21 requirements do not exist yet.
> I hope I have not
> missed anything. 802.21 requirements shall be formally
> approved in 802.21
> before they are sent to IETF in the name of 802.21.
I guess I must disagree. There is no officially approved document in terms that we have not yet had any formal voting, that's true. However, we have a draft document being developed by several parties in 802.21, and on which several parties in 802.21 have a good agreement. The document has been produced based on group wide discussions in formally approved audioconferences where the whole team could attend, and is not just the output of a set of individuals that have been working together offline. Perhaps you missed all the audioconferences where these requirements were discussed?
Ajay can comment more on this.
Also, a presentation of some of these requirements already took place at the last IETF, with nobody from 802.21 objecting to it.
> As you know, in IETF, all contributions and opinions are
> individual and do
> not represent any SDO, thus some formal liaison between
> 802.21 and mipshop
> must be established to allow formal 802.21 statements to be passed to
> mipshop.
Hong-Yon, even with a formal liaison in place, according to IETF way of working IETF could add to those requirements or modify them exactly because, as you mention, "in IETF, all contributions and opinions are individual and do not represent any SDO."
>
> Thus it is not sufficient to just re-charter mipshop and ask
> 802.21ers to
> participate in mipshop (as individuals).
Absolutely, that's why there is an ongoing effort in 802.21 to define such requirements.
Hong-Yon, from your e-mail and Ajoy's e-mail I get the feeling you are concerned IETF may go on by itself and do the work for 802.21. That is not the intention of MIPSHOP and there is nothing in the current charter draft that indicates that's the intention. However, we need to keep in mind the following aspects of IETF modus operandi:
- even with formal liaison in place, no WG in IETF can easily work on defining a new protocol or enhancing an existing one without having a problem statement draft describing the motivations for the work and the requirements that need to be satisfied.
- for 802.21 requirements to be used by IETF, they need to be submitted to the IETF community for discussion, and the best way is typically to have the IETF WG of relevance produce a WG draft containing those requirements. The key point here is that the draft is created and developed in IETF (in theory by 802.21 members), but the requirements would come directly from 802.21
- without such problem statement, it would be unfair for IETF members that are not or cannot be members of 802.21. In fact, they would not be enabled to participate to the work of defining a new protocol or enhancing an existing one. That would be quite "exclusive", whereas the work done ion IETF must be as inclusive as possible.
Given these points, and given my previous e-mail on the good chance of 802.21 to create an appropriate nest in IETF for the work that we have at this time but may not have so easily later on, I once again advocate in favor of the new WG charter based on the discussion that took place at the last IETF and so far within 802.21.
Also, I once again would solicit input from other parties in 802.21 to hear their opinions.
>
> Cheers,
> Hong-Yon
>
>
> > From: "Stefano M. Faccin" <stefano.faccin@NOKIA.COM>
> > Reply-To: <stefano.faccin@NOKIA.COM>
> > Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 12:00:36 -0500
> > To: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
> > Conversation: [802.21] FW: [Mipshop] new charter
> > Subject: Re: [802.21] FW: [Mipshop] new charter
> >
> > Ajoy,
> > thanks for your opinion. I guess we need to agree to
> disagree on this. My
> > point on the minutes and what was actually discussed and
> decided at the last
> > 802.21 stays.
> > Stefano
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ext Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:ASINGH1@motorola.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:56
> >> To: Faccin Stefano (Nokia-NRC/Dallas);
> STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> >> Subject: RE: [802.21] FW: [Mipshop] new charter
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Stefano,
> >>
> >> Let me clarify one point. I do NOT believe that
> re-chartering MIPSHOP
> >> now will make .21 life easier. 802.21 will always have
> option to go to
> >> IETF to
> >> modify existing IETF protocol once we know what we want from
> >> IETF. Just
> >> to give you a pointer, SeaMoby WG discussed for years information
> >> service and
> >> we could only agree to experimental protocol. So, it will be
> >> lot easier
> >> if we can discuss IS requirements as well as various
> protocols in IEEE
> >> and then go to IETF for any modification with well defined goal.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ajoy
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stefano M. Faccin [mailto:stefano.faccin@NOKIA.COM]
> >> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:39 AM
> >> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> >> Subject: [802.21] FW: [Mipshop] new charter
> >>
> >> Dear 802.21 members,
> >>
> >> based on these objections from Ajoy I realize that there may
> >> still be a
> >> lot of dissention and confusion. I think it would be
> useful if 802.21
> >> members were vocal on the MIPSHO WG mailing list to indicate
> >> whether you
> >> are interested or not in the MIPSHOP WG to adopt a charter
> >> that enables
> >> MIPSHOP to work on 802.21-related aspects taking input
> from 802.21 in
> >> terms of requirements and scenarios. As usual, in IETF the
> >> decision will
> >> be made based on rough consensus of the participants to the IETF
> >> discussion, not based e.g. on any decision made in 802.21
> as a group.
> >> E.g. even if 802.21 decided that something needs to be
> done in a given
> >> WG in IETF, this is not sufficient for the work to
> actually happen in
> >> the IETF WG. However, the members of 802.21 may express their
> >> opinion as
> >> individuals, and the opinion may match what has been decided
> >> in 802.21.
> >> Therefore opinions would be very useful, and I would suggest
> >> submitting
> >> your opinions ASAP. 802.21 has a great opportunity with the MIPSHO!
> >> P rechartering to create a recipient ready to take 802.21
> >> requirements
> >> and carry out the work 802.21 needs to be done (no matter
> >> what such work
> >> is). It would be much more difficult to get the IETF to recharter
> >> MIPSHOP or another WG later on just for 802.21 needs.
> >>
> >> For those of you not on the MIPSHOP mailing list, please find
> >> information at
> >> http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mipshop-charter.html on
> >> how to join.
> >>
> >> Please find the charter as it is being proposed at
> >>
> http://www.geocities.com/gabriel_montenegro_2000/mipshop-charter.htm.
> >>
> >> Ajoy, by the way, either the secretary in 802.21 got the discussion
> >> wrong, or perhaps you read more than there is in what was actually
> >> discussed. I'm basing my comments on the minutes of September 22:
> >>
> >> "2.3.1. Comment: From the point of IEEE 802 wireless as
> >> a group to IETF,
> >> all the protocols on the table should be evaluated and
> selected in the
> >> same way, not only one specific protocol. Response: Just help
> >> people to
> >> understand what has been done in IETF. "
> >>
> >> "2.3.3. Ajay: In principle, 802.21 and IEEE can take a
> >> look at IETF
> >> protocols and evaluate them. We do not preclude the
> >> evaluation process.
> >> Whether the protocol is CARD or not is a different issue. "
> >>
> >> To me this in now way says that 802.21 as a group has decided to
> >> consider existing IETF protocols before deciding what is
> required from
> >> IETF. To my understanding the minutes state that 802.21
> may evaluate
> >> IETF protocols and make recommendations to IETF, but we
> did not decide
> >> to put on hold the requirements for IETF until such protocol
> >> evaluation
> >> is done. Ajay, what is your understanding?
> >>
> >> Stefano
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: ext Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:ASINGH1@motorola.com]
> >>> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:38
> >>> To: Faccin Stefano (Nokia-NRC/Dallas);
> >>> gabriel_montenegro_2000@yahoo.com; mipshop@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Stefano,
> >>>
> >>> I also attended 802.21 meeting. During .21 meeting, we
> >> discussed that
> >>> 802.21 would consider existing IETF protocol before deciding
> >>> what is required from IETF. I guess that discussion will only
> >>> take place
> >>> once the requirements are finalized and agreed upon. If I recall
> >>> correctly we have not have yet agreed upon communication
> >>> model, although
> >>> we had very good discussion about that. So, my point is
> >> that we should
> >>> wait till such discussion takes place in 802.21 before adding
> >>> such work
> >>> item in MIPSHOP charter. It is very much possible that 802.21
> >>> will come
> >>> to IETF with a request to make enhancement to existing protocol or
> >>> define new protocol. But I guess it may be too early to make that
> >>> decision.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Ajoy
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: stefano.faccin@nokia.com [mailto:stefano.faccin@nokia.com]
> >>> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:11 AM
> >>> To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; gabriel_montenegro_2000@yahoo.com;
> >>> mipshop@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter
> >>>
> >>> Ajoy,
> >>> I do believe that based on discussion at the last MIPSHOP and
> >>> in 802.21
> >>> there is a clear indication that 802.21 will need some work
> >> to be done
> >>> in IETF. I agree the details have not been decided 100% yet,
> >>> however the
> >>> charter as it is being proposed is flexible enough to allow for
> >>> different requirements coming from 802.21 members.
> >>>
> >>> Stefano
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: ext Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:ASINGH1@motorola.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:01
> >>>> To: gabriel montenegro; mipshop@ietf.org; Faccin Stefano
> >>>> (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
> >>>> Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Gabriel,
> >>>>
> >>>> IEEE 802.21 is still defining requirements for Information
> >>>> Service. So,
> >>>> I am not sure if it is clear yet what is needed from IETF?
> >>> So, do you
> >>>> want
> >>>> charter something based on assumption that 802.21 will
> >>>> require something
> >>>> from IETF or wait till 802.21 requirement analysis is
> complete and
> >>>> agreed upon.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Ajoy
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org
> >> [mailto:mipshop-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >>>> Behalf Of gabriel montenegro
> >>>> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 2:11 AM
> >>>> To: mipshop@ietf.org; stefano.faccin@nokia.com
> >>>> Subject: [Mipshop] new charter
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> You can find the proposed new charter here:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
http://www.geocities.com/gabriel_montenegro_2000/mipshop-charter.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Mipshop mailing list
>>>> Mipshop@ietf.org
>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>>>>
>>>
>>