Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802.21] IETF Drafts



I also think this is a good idea. I support this.

Regards,
Srini 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba@TARI.TOSHIBA.COM] 
>Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 8:16 PM
>To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802.21] IETF Drafts
>
>Qiaobing,
>
>I fully support your proposal on having Annex on IETF 
>requirements as informative.
>
>Best regards,
>Yoshihiro Ohba
>
>On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:35:43AM -0600, Qiaobing Xie wrote:
>> 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
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>           
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>