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
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>