Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts
To make it clear and non-controversial, what probably needs to happen is
as the follows (I use IS as example here):
1. Define a clear set of .21 requirements for transporting IS over
higher layer protocol (this has been mostly done with our previous
ad-hoc discussions). Say, if we end up with 15 of them, name them R1 - R15.
2. Open an Annex in .21 draft spec, say, Annex R: Requirements for
transporting IS over higher layer protocol, where we will list R1 - R15.
3. Discuss and approve this "Annex R" in .21 following the normal .21
change control process.
4. Then go to IETF (or ITU-T or whatever SDOs) and cite Annex R in .21
draft spec as the official .21 requirements.
regards,
-Qiaobing
Ajay Rajkumar wrote:
> 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 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>