Subject: [16NG] multiple encapsulation issue

From: "Daniel Park" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:05:52 +0900

Folks,

As you are aware of, IAB is in the progress of spelling out multiple
encapsulation considerations. The latest publication is
draft-iab-link-encaps-08. It indicates lot of considerations to the
usage of 802.16 multiple convergence sublayers. I am thinking of
dealing with this issue in this list more detail and precise than now.
I believe it would be valuable effort at this stage prior to moving
this document forward.

What do you think ?

Question 1: Are you thinking that we need to do this in 16ng ?
If yes, go to Question 2
If no, let me know why

Question 2: How many folks are willing to work on that together ?
Most activities are to analyze IAB document first and make a clear
answer to all of considerations. If necessary, drafting would be good
for folks information.

Results will be shown at the next meeting in Chicago hopefully.

-- 

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

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:06:44 +0100

> I believe it would be valuable effort at this stage prior to moving

I like these kinds of documents.

> Question 1: Are you thinking that we need to do this in 16ng ?

I personally think yes.

> Question 2: How many folks are willing to work on that together ?

I.

> answer to all of considerations. If necessary, drafting would be good

Sounds good.  There are two recommendations in  that draft that should 
sound very provokative, by my understanding of this WG:

draft-iab-link-encaps-08.txt:
>     When developing standards for encapsulating IP packets on a link
>       layer technology, it is desirable that only a single encapsulation
>       method should be standardized for each link layer technology;
[...]
>    Recommendations: Given these issues, it is strongly recommended that
>    only a single kind of CS supporting a single encapsulation method
>    should be usable on a particular link.

I mean knowing both ETHCS and IPCS are under specification this would 
sound like a need to join the two.  Or maybe separate one as ptp and the 
other as mcast... not sure I get this right.

But yes, I can contribute to this discussion.

Alex

> Results will be shown at the next meeting in Chicago hopefully.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

---

From: Bruno Miguel Sousa <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:30:14 +0000

Hi.

> Question 1: Are you thinking that we need to do this in 16ng ?
Yes, we need.
The questions are pertinent.
> answer to all of considerations. If necessary, drafting would be good
One more.
Tomorrow I can present myself to Alexandru Petrescu and others volunteers
to this work.

---

From: "Daniel Park" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:55:30 +0900

> Tomorrow I can present myself to Alexandru Petrescu and others volunteers

Are you saying tomorrow afternoon 16ng session ? Unfortunately, we
have more priority tomorrow. If you can speak about it in Friday
morning session, that would be great...

--

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:01:20 -0400

> Question 1: Are you thinking that we need to do this in 16ng ?
Yes.

> Question 2: How many folks are willing to work on that together ?
I am certainly interested.

Cheers
Suresh

---

From: qinxia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:54:27 +0800

Hello all,
               I care for this topic too. We need to give enough
consideration on effect on network deployment from unified CS.

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 发送时间: 2007年3月19日 8:01
> 收件人: Daniel Park
> 抄送: [email-masked]
> 主题: Re: [16NG] multiple encapsulation issue
>

---

From: Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:50:04 +0900

Ok folks, I've seen lot of interest regarding this stuff.
I've formed a new closed mailing list for further discussion
with several volunteers. Thanks all of volunteers.

Hopefully, we will show up the result of this work in
Chicago.

-- Daniel Park

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Park [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:06 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [16NG] multiple encapsulation issue
> 
> Folks,
>