WG last call on draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps

Hello,

This is a two week working group last call for
draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps-00.txt. You can find the
document at the following URL.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ie
tf-mipshop-mis-ps-00.txt

The last call expires on March 26 2007.

Please post any issues or comments on this document to
the MIPSHOP WG mailing list. In case you have reviewed
the document and found no issues, please send an email
saying you support advancing this document.

The intended status for this document is Informational.

Vijay

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

Vijay,

If not mandated, it is at least a recommended practice not
to overlap a LC
with the IETF week. Could you please move the call to after
the IETF week?

Alper


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:vijay.devarapalliazairenet.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 3:03 AM
> To: mipshopietf.org
> Subject: [Mipshop] WG last call on
draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This is a two week working group last call for
> draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps-00.txt. You can find the
> document at the following URL.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ie
tf-mipshop-mis-ps-00.txt
> 
> The last call expires on March 26 2007.
> 
> Please post any issues or comments on this document to
> the MIPSHOP WG mailing list. In case you have reviewed
> the document and found no issues, please send an email
> saying you support advancing this document.
> 
> The intended status for this document is
Informational.
> 
> Vijay
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshopietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop


_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

The last call expires on April 2 2007.

Vijay

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This is a two week working group last call for
> draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps-00.txt. You can find the
> document at the following URL.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ie
tf-mipshop-mis-ps-00.txt
> 
> The last call expires on March 26 2007.
> 
> Please post any issues or comments on this document to
> the MIPSHOP WG mailing list. In case you have reviewed
> the document and found no issues, please send an email
> saying you support advancing this document.
> 
> The intended status for this document is
Informational.
> 
> Vijay
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshopietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop


_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

I've read this document again.

First off:

I am not familiar with the subject of this document. As I
pointed out
before, this document does not mention *problem statements*
clearly.
Rather, it is entirely focusing on the solution space.
What's the
intention of this document ? Also, the scope of this
document is too
much wide. Here is the previous thread on this concern: (it
was
silently discarded though.)
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mipshop
/current/msg02879.html

Also, I am really confused what consistency happens between
DT and
this document. Most stuffs in the PS document seem to be in
DT's
effort especially solution components. No matter which
document would
address these aspects, but the current situation seems a bit
weird. DT
is working for another things ? Or trying to meet the
requirement and
solution components described in the PS document ? The
solution
components described in this document implies WG consensus
in
accordance with IEEE 802.21 consensus ?

Further details will be forthcoming, but hope to see the
clarification
on this matter above first.

Daniel

On 3/11/07, Vijay Devarapalli <vijay.devarapalliazairenet.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a two week working group last call for
> draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps-00.txt. You can find the
> document at the following URL.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ie
tf-mipshop-mis-ps-00.txt
>
> The last call expires on March 26 2007.
>
> Please post any issues or comments on this document to
> the MIPSHOP WG mailing list. In case you have reviewed
> the document and found no issues, please send an email
> saying you support advancing this document.
>
> The intended status for this document is
Informational.
>
> Vijay
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshopietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>


-- 


Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

daniel, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Park [mailto:soohongpgmail.com] 
> Sent: 12 March 2007 16:09
> To: Vijay Devarapalli
> Cc: mipshopietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Mipshop] WG last call on
draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps
> 
> I've read this document again.
> 
> First off:
> 
> I am not familiar with the subject of this document. As
I 
> pointed out before, this document does not mention
*problem 
> statements* clearly.
> Rather, it is entirely focusing on the solution space.
What's 
> the intention of this document ? Also, the scope of
this 
> document is too much wide. Here is the previous thread
on 
> this concern: (it was silently discarded though.) 
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mipshop
/current/msg02879.html

i believe that thread was discussing this document:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melia-mip
shop-mobility-services-ps-00
"Mobility Services: Problem Statement" of 40
pages.

the current document is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps-00
"Mobility Independent Services: Problem Statement"
of 19 pages.

the last substantive comment in the thread was from Behcet
"change the title and then remove all annexes"

well, i think the title could still be made more precise (to

point to the content of section 5.1, which is the main
purpose of
the document), but what else do you think has been ignored?

> 
> Also, I am really confused what consistency happens
between 
> DT and this document. Most stuffs in the PS document
seem to 
> be in DT's effort especially solution components. No
matter 
> which document would address these aspects, but the
current 
> situation seems a bit weird. DT is working for another
things 
> ? Or trying to meet the requirement and solution
components 
> described in the PS document ? The solution components

> described in this document implies WG consensus in
accordance 
> with IEEE 802.21 consensus ?

Please point out which bits you see as overlapping.
Speaking
personally, my belief is that the role of the DT is to
produce
a solution for the blob called "MSTP" in Figure 5,
along with
any associated work needed to support that (e.g.
definitions
of the boundary of the blob). I'd be interested to know if 
people think that anything else is expected, and if so
what.

In terms of the relationship with .21 work, I guess that WG
consensus means "mipshop thinks that producing a
solution that
fits the role of the MSTP is a useful thing to do". We
hope
that a solution for the MSTP will be useful for .21 - but 
I don't see how mipshop can *decide* that, it's a matter
for
.21 to judge.

robert h.

> 
> Further details will be forthcoming, but hope to see
the 
> clarification on this matter above first.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 3/11/07, Vijay Devarapalli <vijay.devarapalliazairenet.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This is a two week working group last call for 
> > draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps-00.txt. You can find the
document at the 
> > following URL.
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ie
tf-mipshop-mis-ps-00.txt
> >
> > The last call expires on March 26 2007.
> >
> > Please post any issues or comments on this
document to the 
> MIPSHOP WG 
> > mailing list. In case you have reviewed the
document and found no 
> > issues, please send an email saying you support
advancing this 
> > document.
> >
> > The intended status for this document is
Informational.
> >
> > Vijay
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mipshop mailing list
> > Mipshopietf.org
> > https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshopietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:

> There is a specific set of requirements on L3 transport
of 802.21,
> which is described in Annex D of P802-21-D04-00. 
MIPSHOP solution for
> this problem scope needs to meet those requirements to
be useful for
> 802.21.  From 802.21 perspective, I think that the most
important
> thing in this WG Last Call is to make sure that the
requirements
> described in draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps covers the
802.21 requirements.

IMO, this is very important.

Vijay

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

hi Yoshihiro,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohbatari.toshiba.com] 
> Sent: 12 March 2007 17:31
> To: Hancock, Robert
> Cc: Daniel Park; Vijay Devarapalli; mipshopietf.org;

> stds-802-21listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [Mipshop] WG last call on
draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps
> 
> Hi Robert,
> 
> (cc'ing to 802.21)
> 
> Thank you very much for leading the Design Team.  I
have one 
> comment below.

thanks - I hope I can meet people's needs.

> 
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:48:10PM -0000, Hancock,
Robert wrote:
> > 
> > In terms of the relationship with .21 work, I
guess that WG 
> consensus 
> > means "mipshop thinks that producing a
solution that fits 
> the role of 
> > the MSTP is a useful thing to do". We hope
that a solution for the 
> > MSTP will be useful for .21 - but I don't see how
mipshop 
> can *decide* 
> > that, it's a matter for
> > .21 to judge.
> 
> There is a specific set of requirements on L3 transport
of 
> 802.21, which is described in Annex D of
P802-21-D04-00.  
> MIPSHOP solution for this problem scope needs to meet
those 
> requirements to be useful for 802.21.  From 802.21 
> perspective, I think that the most important thing in
this WG 
> Last Call is to make sure that the requirements
described in 
> draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps covers the 802.21
requirements.

I think this is absolutely correct. We need to know if the
problems
that .21 needs solving will be solved by this solution.
(There could be
other reasons for mipshop people to comment on the document,
but this is
the specific
thing that is important to know from .21.)

> 
> Best Regards,
> Yoshihiro Ohba
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

Hi Robert,

(cc'ing to 802.21)

Thank you very much for leading the Design Team.  I have one
comment
below.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:48:10PM -0000, Hancock, Robert
wrote:
> 
> In terms of the relationship with .21 work, I guess
that WG
> consensus means "mipshop thinks that producing a
solution that
> fits the role of the MSTP is a useful thing to
do". We hope
> that a solution for the MSTP will be useful for .21 -
but 
> I don't see how mipshop can *decide* that, it's a
matter for
> .21 to judge.

There is a specific set of requirements on L3 transport of
802.21,
which is described in Annex D of P802-21-D04-00.  MIPSHOP
solution for
this problem scope needs to meet those requirements to be
useful for
802.21.  From 802.21 perspective, I think that the most
important
thing in this WG Last Call is to make sure that the
requirements
described in draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps covers the 802.21
requirements.

Best Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba


_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

> Please point out which bits you see as overlapping.
Speaking
> personally, my belief is that the role of the DT is to
produce
> a solution for the blob called "MSTP" in
Figure 5, along with
> any associated work needed to support that (e.g.
definitions
> of the boundary of the blob). I'd be interested to know
if
> people think that anything else is expected, and if so
what.
>
> In terms of the relationship with .21 work, I guess
that WG
> consensus means "mipshop thinks that producing a
solution that
> fits the role of the MSTP is a useful thing to
do". We hope
> that a solution for the MSTP will be useful for .21 -
but
> I don't see how mipshop can *decide* that, it's a
matter for
> .21 to judge.

I am afraid if you say "...how mipshop can *decide*
that..." since
this document is under WGLC. It means this document is a
mipshiop WG
document. Once completing its WGLC, it will may be forward
to IESG for
official publication. AFAIC, that means mipshop admits the
solution
components described in this document to the IETF consensus.
It does
not a matter for 802.21 at all. Are you thinking that
mipshop or other
WGs will develop a new solution components regardless of
this  mipshop
publication ? If yes, it is a redundent effort on the same
subject.

I thought DT will show up these sorts of components for MIH
transport
protocol solution through their in-depth discussion.

In fact, I was surprised to see WGLC announcement. I
recommand WG not
to progress WGLC on this document as it is. After looking at
DT's
report in Prague meeting, then WG will be able to resume its
process.

Daniel

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

Daniel Park wrote:

> I am afraid if you say "...how mipshop can
*decide* that..." since
> this document is under WGLC. It means this document is
a mipshiop WG
> document. Once completing its WGLC, it will may be
forward to IESG for
> official publication. AFAIC, that means mipshop admits
the solution
> components described in this document to the IETF
consensus. It does
> not a matter for 802.21 at all. Are you thinking that
mipshop or other
> WGs will develop a new solution components regardless
of this  mipshop
> publication ? If yes, it is a redundent effort on the
same subject.
> 
> I thought DT will show up these sorts of components for
MIH transport
> protocol solution through their in-depth discussion.
> 
> In fact, I was surprised to see WGLC announcement. I
recommand WG not
> to progress WGLC on this document as it is. After
looking at DT's
> report in Prague meeting, then WG will be able to
resume its process.

This last call is on a problem statement document. The
document provides a problem definition, deployment
scenarios
and the required solution components. It does not tie us
to a particular solution.

If you think the problem statement is tying us to a
particular solution, please point out those parts of the
draft. We can remove that text.

Vijay

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop