Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts
Yoshi,
Please see my comments below.
Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
> This is an interesting suggestion for 802.21 WG to have long-term
> control on the IETF requirements.
What we want is a core set of *official* 802.21 transport requirements
for MIH IS over higher layer protocols. Nothing can be called *official*
until it is approved and change controlled (i.e., our Commentary
process). Using annexes is the easiest way in 802.21 to do so in my view.
>
> 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*?
Using the core *official* 802.21 requirements as a base, any individual
or external SDO can then develop an area-specific implementation
strategy for meeting the 802.21 core requirements, including possible
area-specific additional requirements, and area-specific interpretation
and description text, etc. The individual or SDO will
own that new text and claim responsibility for controlling and
maintaining it. (For example, when an IETF draft becomes a working group
item, IETF will own and change control it).
If any modification or correction to the core 802.21 *official*
transport requirements is identified after the publication of 802.21
spec, it will be handled in the standard way IEEE spec correction is
handled (via an Errata?).
regards,
-Qiaobing
>
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>