Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts
Hi Srini,
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 12:15:06PM -0600, Srinivas Sreemanthula wrote:
> Subir,
>
> May be the other way to ask ourselves is - are these drafts not aligned
> with 802.21 WG thinking wrt L3 solutions? For example, the drafts carry
> the important message that the 802.21 MIH service protocol is defined in
> 802.21 and only the transport is required from the IETF. Accordingly,
> the drafts were written in such a way there is no mention of any
> protocol functionality or the information carried as part of the
> protocol. The drafts show that the focus of the work in IETF is the
> transport design and other functions like discovery and security which
> are not covered in 802.21. For this, we spent enormous time to define
> the transport requirements and "agreed" on those and incorporated in the
> drafts.
I understand that the authors made a lot of efforts to create the
drafts in a good shape and I see there is some level of concensus on
the contents of the drafts. I really appreciate the work. On the
other hand, as far as I understand IEEE802 uses the term "agreed" for
technical material only on voting basis, please correct if I am wrong.
>
> If there are parts that deviate from this core message, we should list
> them out for the benefit of the authors. I am not sure if we need to
> align on a word-to-word basis with some voting process to approve this
> work. This is unnecessary especially since we may have to update later
> with feedback from various sources and voting everytime for those
> changes in 802.21 is a bit of a stretch. This is one of the reasons we
> did not seek voting for this in 802.21.
Although I don't think we should vote word-to-word basis or vote on
every version of the drafts, I believe at least initial official
approval of 802.21 WG is a key to success, and I think it is not
difficult to achieve this once the drafts are revised with more
discussion in 802.21 WG. Ohterwise, I am afraid IETF people would ask
the same question about 802.21 WG's official view of the drafts over
and over, which could make IESG uncomfortable about the work.
>
> Regardless of the level of support, these drafts will be used to develop
> solutions in MIPSHOP for MIH services. We can leave it at "partial
> support" but the transport requirements for IS and ES/CS were discussed
> extensively and agreed by the group. I think at least that part has
> "full support". WRT Problem statement draft, I ask the same question as
> above, how does it differ from our WG thinking?
The issue here is what does "support" or "agreement" exactly mean in
an SDO like IEEE802 that is based on voting?
Best regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba
>
> regards,
> Srini
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ext Subir Das [mailto:subir@research.telcordia.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:19 AM
> >To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
> >Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts
> >
> >Srini,
> >Thanks for asking this. I would say # 2 is more appropriate
> >at this moment with minor modification.
> >
> >2. Discussed and contains some feedback from IEEE 802.21 members
> >
> >I would agree with you that we should represent 802.21 view
> >and seek for WG support. IMO, we need more work and
> >participation within 802.21 WG to make that happen.
> >
> >regards,
> >-Subir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>In the current state, I would like to know exactly what to say with
> >>respect to carrying IEEE 802.21's message in the drafts in the March
> >>IETF meeting. I see three options.
> >>
> >>1. Entirely author's view (weak to no support) 2. Discussed and
> >>contains feedback from IEEE 802.21 members (partial
> >>support)
> >>3. Agreed by 802.21 (support)
> >>
> >>I would like the WG to keep in mind that internet-drafts submitted by
> >>individuals are the only way to present work items into the IETF. For
> >>both 802.21 and IETF, these drafts hold more ground if they represent
> >>the 802.21 view.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Srini
> >>
> >>
> >
>