Re: [802.21] FW: [Mipshop] new charter
Hi Stefano,
Comments inline...
> From: <stefano.faccin@nokia.com>
> Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 13:56:54 -0500
> To: Hong-Yon Lach <hong-yon.lach@motorola.com>,
> <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
> Conversation: [802.21] FW: [Mipshop] new charter
> Subject: 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.
My understanding is that the scheduled audio-conferences are a means to
allow 802.21 to make progress. But this does not delegate decision making of
802.21 to these ad-hoc discussions. 802.21 official standings can only be
approved in 802.21 meetings, or I am missing something...
>
>> 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."
>
That's fine. I just wanted to point out that participants in mipshop cannot
represent 802.21. Only a formal 802.21 liaison communication can spead on
behalf of 802.21.
>>
>> 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.
I don't think 802.21 can prevent mipshop from addressing 802.21 issues. Only
IETF can decide how mipshop operates.
I am more concerned with how 802.21 operates. I think 802.21 needs to:
- Establish clear requirements for itself to really understand what are
needed.
- Identify what are within its scope to specify, and what are to be left to
other SDOs or various options.
I see 802.2 and mipshop as 2 independent efforts. Although mipshop can
voluntarily take 802.21 requirements in its work, it should be clear that
802.21 has not commissioned anything to mipshop.
Cheers,
Hong-Yon
>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>