stds-802-handoff: Re: IETF feedback to 802.21 (was something else)

[Alper Yegin <alper@docomolabs-usa.com>]

Pekka,

>> One useful output of the DNA discussions would be that the experience
>> we
>> gain can be fed into the link-layer designers as requirements or
>> nice-to-have features. We talked about that, and the WG decided not to
>> include an official deliverable for this purpose. I personally believe
>> that
>> producing such a document would be useful and doable.
> 
> I pretty much agree with you that a document targeted to link-layer
> designers would be highly useful.  However, it was felt as a part
> of the DNA chartering process that it is better to focus, in the WG,
> on issues that clearly belong to the IETF.

Sure. As long as we find a way to collect the experience we gained at the
DNA working group and document it. It does not have to be a DNA Working
group item.

Similar effort was taken by the IETF PILC group, which produced:
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-link-design-15.txt
This draft has a mobility considerations section but I think this is not
sufficient. Especially with the experience we are going to gain at DNA, IETF
would have more to say in this field. Unfortunately it is too late to update
that draft now, which is approved as a BCP.

> 
> If you would like to go on further with link layer issues, I would
> suggest you to try to get some people from the IAB involved, as IAB
> is supposed to co-ordinate the work with other standard bodies.
> James is probably interested, but as usual may have a different
> point of view from you.  Hence, I guess working with Bernard is
> probably the best way to go forward, as he is also deeply involved
> in this work.  Maybe Itojun could also help.  Thinking about the
> actual editing work, my guess is that Jari might be willing to work
> on such a document, too.
> 
> Hence, maybe you could create a kind of ad hoc group or a "design
> team", working together with the IAB, to produce such a document?
> It could then be circulated in a number of WGs (DNA, MIPv4, MIPv6,
> MIPSHOP, DHC, IPv6, SEND, ...) before putting it out for the IETF LC.


Alper



> 
> --Pekka
> 
>