Subject: [Mipshop] new charter

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 00:10:34 -0700 (PDT)

Hi folks,

You can find the proposed new charter here:

http://www.geocities.com/gabriel_montenegro_2000/mipshop-charter.htm

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:12:14 +0200

> http://www.geocities.com/gabriel_montenegro_2000/mipshop-charter.htm

Hi Gabriel, is the Charter up for discussion?

Could I comment on the 802.21 parts.  It seems to be written well and
with focused goals.  However, as an 802.21-outsider it still looks very
vague to me.  May I ask the following:

> Additionally, the IEEE 802.21 Media Independent Handoff (MIH) working
>  group aims at providing services to assist with handoffs between 
> heterogeneous link-layer technologies,

What exactly are the link-layer technologies that are planned?  Is that
3GPP and 802.xx MAC?

> and across IP subnet boundaries.

Is that IPv4 or IPv6?  Or both?

Is 802.21 above or below IP?

> 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)

I can't understand this.  Usually an information exchange is not a
service.  An information exchange is a set of request-reply -like
messages.  On the contrary, a service is more like a DNS service, an
HTTP service, or some other service where one uses SLP to locate that
service.  Would MIES, MICS and MIIS relate to SDP and SLP?

Otherwise, what exactly is an 802.21 message exchange?  What are the
names of each message of that exchange?  E.g. in 802.11 there's a
message called ASSOCIATE.

> The MIIS provides topological and location-related information of 
> service networks.

What's a "service network"?  Is that a "serviced" network?  Is that a
network providing services?

> An L2 or L3 based mechanism to identify a valid information server is
>  also required.

An L2 or an L3 -based mechanism?  Or both?

Identifying an information server could also be achieved with SLP, DHAAD
and DHCP, right?  Why not?

> 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.

Enhance which protocol?

Alex

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:53:18 -0700

Comment:

I think names of specific individual drafts should be removed from the 
charter. WG charters typically don't mention these, only the work topic and, 
if appropriate, the name that will be given to the WG draft when it is 
approved by the WG. Prior to accepting an individual draft as a WG draft, I 
believe the usual IETF procedure is that there needs to be a dicussion 
period on the list and then a concensus call.

            jak

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:37:46 -0700

Hi Gabriel and Stefano,

"5. Address the overlap of IEEE 802.21 and MIPSHOP (see item 2 above) by
     *  Producing 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
     * 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."

I am curious about the wording "Address overlap.." Why not just list the 
latter two bullets? I think the work on 802.21 should be work on itself 
rather than to address an overlap, if any.

Also,

"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."

is very speculative. Especially the Note. Is it necessary?

Thanks,

-Rajeev

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:41:35 -0700 (PDT)

> rather than to address an overlap, if any.

Reworded to: 

"5. Work on areas of mutual interest to IEEE 802.21 and MIPSHOP (see item 2 above):"

followed by the two bullets.

> is very speculative. Especially the Note. Is it necessary?

Necessary? Probably not. The answer's the same if you had asked:
"Does it hurt?" It's there because some folks are quite interested in
this. I'm inclined to leave it in for the time being, until we hear more either
for it or against it. Of course, it is up to the folks who are interested
to initiate discussion, argument for it, etc.

New version with slight edits is at:

-gabriel

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:47:13 -0700

I think we need to make sure that the information representation developed 
for 802.21 also works to support FMIP. Not sure how to put that in the 
charter, though.

        jak

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:07:47 -0700

James Kempf wrote:
> I think we need to make sure that the information representation 
> developed for 802.21 also works to support FMIP. 

Agree.

 > Not sure how to put
> that in the charter, though.

That's what I am struggling with as well. Given the current status of 
understanding of 802.21, how much dependency we would like to have..
In any case, I would not like to end up in a situation where we 
_require_ folks to have 802.21 in order to support FMIP.

-Rajeev

> 
>        jak
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "gabriel montenegro" 
> <[email-masked]>