Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 02:06:58 -0400

Gabriel, 

Please find my inline questions and comments about the proposed charter.

Regards,

Ajoy 

Additionally, the IEEE 802.21 Media Independent Handoff (MIH) working
group aims at providing services to assist with handoffs between
heterogeneous link-layer technologies, and across IP subnet boundaries.
The information exchanges defined by IEEE 802.21 are classified as MI
(Media Independent) Event Service (MIES), MI Command Service (MICS), and
MI Information Service (MIIS). The MIIS provides topological and
location-related information of service networks.  The MIES provides
timely communications of wireless environment information via the
delivery of events originating across the link-layer or farther away.
The MICS is an analogous service for commands which can change the state
of the wireless link or of a host's point of attachment, potentially
triggering further event generation. MIH services can be delivered
through link-layer specific solutions and/or through a "layer 3 or
above" protocol. MIPSHOP will define the delivery of information for MIH
services for this latter case. Notice that this allows the network
information to reside anywhere (not necessarily across the link-layer
hop), and enables MIH services even in the absence of the corresponding
link-layer support. An L2 or L3 based mechanism to identify a valid
information server is also required. 

Ajoy->  IEEE 802.21 higher layer requirements are still being discussed
by .21 team so IMHO adding reference to 802.21 higher layer requirements
is not useful in anyway.  Also, for your information, based upon current
802.21 requirements discussion, L3 based mechanism to identify
information server is not being considered by .21 team.  This has been
discussed and current sense is that this will not be supported by higher
layer transport protocol. So, I would request that we should drop above
text from the charter for now.   

Scope of MIPSHOP:

o        Streamline and refine the current FMIPv6 specification. Some of
this work (i.e., that related to information elements and their
transport) may be done in collaboration with IEEE 802.21 (see item 5
below). Note: eventually, FMIPv6 may also use the related Command and
Event Services, but the initial focus will be on Information Services. 

       Ajoy-> The implementer of .21 and FMIPv6 should decide how to use
Command Service, Event Service and Information service along with
FMIPv6. The major portion of ES, IS and CS will be defined by various L2
so why FMIPv6 will need to define such things.   Am I missing anything
here? 

Work on the application of FMIPv6 on two examples link-layers for
advancement as Informational RFCs: 

o        IEEE 802.16e (and WiMax), and 

Ajoy-> I think you are organizing a BOF about IPv6 over 802.16e.   Just
wondering what will be role of 802.16e WG and MIPSHOP with respect to
FMIPv6 over 802.16e work item?  

o        3G CDMA 2K networks 

1.	Produce a document on improving MIPv6 Return Routability via
both Cryptographically Generated Addresses and Credit-based
Authorization for advancement as Proposed Standard 
2.	Work on areas of mutual interest to IEEE 802.21 and MIPSHOP (see
item 2 above): 

	*	Produce a threat analysis and security model for
IP-based discovery and transport of IEEE 802.21 Media-Independent
Information Services for advancement as Informational RFC 

Ajoy-> As I mentioned above, the current sense of .21 team is that IP
based discovery mechanism  won't be part of higher layer transport
protocol so I do not see how the proposed work item is relevant to
802.21.  I would suggest that we should also drop this from charter
unless there is other valid reason for that. 

	*	Produce the required protocol enhancements or
specifications for IP-based support of Media-Independent Information
Services. This will be the initial focus, although eventually,
additional work on Command and Event Services may be added. 

Ajoy->  We should defer this till 802.21 HL requirements are completed.
Perhaps this is too early for present MIPSHOP charter. 

Goals and Milestones:

 10/06

 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-miis-support-XX.txt to IESG for publication
as Proposed Standard 

Ajoy->  Do you think this is achievable given that 802.21 requirements
itself are not finalized yet?

11/06

Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rev-XX.txt to IESG for publication as
Proposed Standard

Ajoy->. I would suggest perhaps we should try to be little aggressive on
FMIPv6 completion date. We have already invested 4-5 years in FMIPv6. 

Delaying it even further will make it less attractive to various SDO(s)
such as WIMAX and 3GPP E-UTRAN to consider this even if there is some
interest. 

WIMAX stage 2 has already defined Simple Mobile/IP V6 so I would think
that the next logical steps of WIMAX would be to consider FMIPv6 or some
other fast handoff scheme as WIMAX is required to support VOIP sessions.
This is just my personal opinion as I have not attended WIMAX meeting
except the last one. 

 

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop