Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts
This is an interesting suggestion for 802.21 WG to have long-term
control on the IETF requirements.
Two questions:
- Requirements for other external SDOs may come up after the 802.21
specification becomes a standard. If that happens, can we do the same
thing in the course of maintaining/updating the specification (e.g.,
in 802.21ma)?
- Do we also need this approach for requirements to other WGs *within
IEEE802*?
Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 10:51:46AM -0600, Qiaobing Xie wrote:
> 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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>