Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
It seems that the discussion stems primarily from two issues. 1. Whenever 802.21 in the past, has spoken about sending official requirements or the problem statement that would be covered by the 802.21-IETF liaison, we have been told that an IETF WG does not take requirements from an external SDO. However, the sentiment on the MIPSHOP reflector seems to indicate otherwise and participants do seem to want to know the official view. This is very encouraging. 2. The authors of some of these individual drafts have taken special effort to explain and emphasize to 802.21 WG that these drafts do not want to be restricted to the 802.21 problem and want to address a much broader scope. With that in mind, could one could get a tacit approval of the WG? Also, what would the approval be for - drafts as they stand or the subset of the draft that matches the current understanding of the .21 problem statement? For the 802.21 WG approval, may be the larger scope first needs to be sufficiently motivated within the .21 membership. Best Regards, -ajay Srinivas Sreemanthula wrote: Yoshi,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.I agree that it is applicable only if one asked if there are any objections to these drafts. At that point, presenting as individual draft was okay. I am bringing this discussion due to the comments I saw in MIPSHOP ML about what official poistion 802.21 has about this.But saying something that may be different from others view is even worse. That's why I am responding as a liaison to IETF.I see there is interest to disucss more about these drafts in the WG. I am encouraging to start the discussion now about what is and what is not aligned with .21 view. We may not be able to update the draft by next week but we can make exceptions when we present the drafts in MIPSHOP. Regards, Srini-----Original Message----- From: ext Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba@tari.toshiba.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:08 PM To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas) Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 02:40:49PM -0600, Srinivas Sreemanthula wrote:Hi Yoshi, Thanks for the participation. I see you are emphasising forvoting onthese 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 OhbaRegards, 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, SrinivasSreemanthula wrote:Subir, May be the other way to ask ourselves is - are these drafts not aligned with 802.21 WG thinking wrt L3 solutions? Forexample, thedrafts 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 inIETF is thetransport design and other functions like discovery andsecurity whichare not covered in 802.21. For this, we spent enormous timeto definethe 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 ofconcensus onthe contents of the drafts. I really appreciate the work. On the other hand, as far as I understand IEEE802 uses the term"agreed" fortechnical material only on voting basis, please correct if I am wrong.If there are parts that deviate from this core message, weshould listthem 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 toapprove thiswork. This is unnecessary especially since we may have toupdate laterwith feedback from various sources and voting everytime for those changes in 802.21 is a bit of a stretch. This is one of thereasons wedid 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 samequestion about802.21 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 andES/CS werediscussed 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 ourWG thinking?The issue here is what does "support" or "agreement"exactly mean inan SDO like IEEE802 that is based on voting? Best regards, Yoshihiro Ohbaregards, 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 moreappropriate at thismoment 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 viewand seekfor WG support. IMO, we need more work and participation within 802.21 WG to make that happen. regards, -SubirIn the current state, I would like to know exactly what tosay withrespect to carrying IEEE 802.21's message in the drafts inthe MarchIETF 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 intothe IETF.For both 802.21 and IETF, these drafts hold more ground if they represent the 802.21 view. Regards, Srini |