| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 02:40:49PM -0600, Srinivas Sreemanthula wrote: > Hi Yoshi, > Thanks for the participation. I see you are emphasising for voting on > these drafts. Based on my particpation in 802.21 so far, I noticed that > voting happens only when there is no agreement. If no one objects, the > items are accepted without voting. Now based on the discussion within > the 802.21, I see no disagreement but several comments from active > members which were used to update the draft. Ofcourse, we could not > address the comments past the deadline. I am afraid some people including myself do not share the same view as yours on this matter. Please see the last slide of attached IETF Liason Report that was presented in Denver meeting. I confirmed with Ajay about the content of the slides before I present. > > As a liaison to IETF, I am sure you understand the importance of > providing a consistent message to MIPSHOP on this aspect. Individual > drafts are also okay in IETF (w/ no 802.21 support), but 80.21 must also > state what relation they have with these drafts. Saying nothing leads to > confusion in IETF, IMO. But saying something that may be different from others view is even worse. That's why I am responding as a liaison to IETF. Yoshihiro Ohba > > Regards, > Srini > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ext Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba@tari.toshiba.com] > >Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:54 PM > >To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas) > >Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org > >Subject: 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 > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
21-06-0582-00-0000-IETF_Liaison_Report.ppt