Re: [802.21] Comments on 21-06-0698-01-0000_IP_configuration_methods_IE.doc
Hi, Yoshi,
...
>>You are making these arguments under the assumption that "IETF will do
>>nothing to support 802.21 and therefore we have to restrict ourselves
>>within the current IETF protocol behaviors". This is not the right
>>reasoning.
>
> If you have that impression in my argument, then it is not correct.
Glad to hear that form you. At least we agree that 802.21 design is not
restricted to the current upper layer solution.
>
> My standpoint is:
>
> - We should not define something new without understanding the benefit.
Of cause.
>
> - If 802.21 define something new and beneficial and without need to
> change IETF protocols, then we don't need to communicate with IETF for
> it.
>
> - If 802.21 define something new and beneficial but that needs some
> modification to IETF protocols, then we should communicate with IETF
> so that IETF can analyze whether the modifications do not affect
> interoperability and make actual modification to the IETF protocols
> accordingly. I am happy to function as a communication channel
> between 802.21 WG and IETF.
I have no problem if you or anyone else want to talk with IETF folks
about the technical details on how *in the future* a particular IETF
protocol may be modified to take advantage of something from 802.21. But
I have a BIG problem if you try to make IETF consent/ok a requirement
for 802.21 to make its design decision. I hope I am wrong but this is
the impression I got from your arguments so far.
But if you take a look at the reference MIH models in section 5.5, IETF
is hiding behind the "MIH Users (L3MP, Handover policy, Transport,
Applications)" above MIH_SAP. It is just *one* of our many envisioned
*potential* MIH users. We have in the draft spec a rich set of IEs
containing information/parameter/attributes related to other
technologies (IETF, 3GPP, 3GPP2, .16, .11) and we envision those IEs
will be used by many many potential MIH Users. However, we have never
required the potential MIH User to review and ok those IEs before we
accepted them in the draft spec. Why should this particular IE proposal
require the review and ok from a potential MIH User - IETF?
If your reasoning stands, and as a fair-minded individual, it would make
sense to you that all the IEs defined 802.21 would need to go through
the same MIH User review/ok process. Do we want to do that? For example,
for each of the 3GPP, 3GPP2, .16, .11, information we want to include in
802.21 IS, do we need to first communicate with 3GPP, 3GPP2, .16, .11
and ask them to review and see if the information included in the 802.21
IE would be misused by an MIH User and cause interoperability problem?
Also, are you going to ask for "actual modification" how the potential
MIH User will use each IE before you agree with it in 802.21?
If the group agrees that should be the process, I will be glad to go
along with it. But it would need to be applied to all the IEs.
Otherwise, I would consider you are trying to apply a double standard to
this particular proposal.
regards,
-Qiaobing
>
> Regards,
> Yoshihiro Ohba
>
>
>
>>regards,
>>-Qiaobing
>>
>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Yoshihiro Ohba
>>
>>
>>
>