Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:13:21 -0400

Hi, Stefano, 

Sorry for being too strong here. I fail to understand your logic. On one
hand you are saying that MIPSHOP should start working on various aspects
of 802.21 IS protocol such as security analysis of IS server discovery
mechanism without requiring any formal requirements from .21 and on
other hand you are suggesting that discussion about CARD is premature on
MIPSHOP list. Btw, what is the process to make a formal request to
include any work item in MIPSHOP charter? Can I make a request to
include CARD and CTP as part of MIPSHOP charter? I do believe these
technologies should be considered for possible advancements to PS. 

Regards,
Ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:36 PM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; Petrescu Alexandru-AAP021;
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter

Ajoy, 
I believe I'm repeating myself, but let me state it once again. I'm not
saying CARD cannot be used. I am just saying that it is very premature
to talk about solutions when the requirements are not completely
defined. It is quite a common approach to first define the requirements,
then discuss the solutions. 

As for what 802.21 does and should do, I once again suggest that the
discussion belongs to the 802.21 list, not MIPSHOP. 

My main concern is that we already have a very limited bandwidth that
can be used for more constructive discussions than talking about a
specific protocols when we are in a phase where we're still discussing
requirements. My suggestion would be that you write an ID describing why
CARD is the solution to adopt, as other authors have done for their
protocols or ideas. 
Stefano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 16:42
> To: Faccin Stefano (Nokia-NRC/Dallas); Petrescu Alexandru-AAP021;
> [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter
> 
> 
> 
> Ajoy, please rest assured the community is well aware of CARD, and it
> was at the time 802.21 was started. You've done a great job in
> advertising CARD in any possible fora and occasion. Yet, 
> 802.21 had put
> a lot of effort with many individuals from this community 
> supporting it,
> even if they were aware of CARD. I am sure the effort the 
> people put int
> his work was in their mind well justified, I find it hard to believe
> that all the 802.21 contributors were wrong or mislead. 
> 
> Ajoy-> I do NOT agree with you. I had conversation with several 802.21
> folks and I found that they were not aware about the function of CARD.
> 802.21 was started to define L2 Event Service, L2 Information Service,
> L2 Command Service and these are still being undertaken by them. The
> idea of 
> L3 transport is new and that is where CARD can play a role. 
> Btw, I also
> personally worked with 802.21 editor and discussed with him 
> CARD concept
> and received his feedback. His feedback was that CARD can be used for
> 802.21 transport although some changes may be required. I have
> co-authored following CARD presentation with him that I used during my
> 802.21 meeting.
> http://www.ieee802.org/21/sept05_meeting_docs/21-05-0360-00-00
00-CARD_Ov
erview_2.ppt 
http://www.ieee802.org/21/sept05_meeting_docs/21-05-0360-01-0000-CARD_Ov
erview_3.ppt 

Btw, why are you too worried about discussing CARD modifications in
802.21 and then bringing these in MIPSHOP or any other IETF WG ?  802.21
will reject it anyway if they think this is not relevant or will not
solve their need.

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:49:06 -0700

Ajoy,

I think Rajeev has made quite clear that CARD is not appropriate for 
supporting FMIP. I also sent out email with a point by point description of 
this prior to the Paris meeting, and stopped responding to your email when 
you continued to repeat the same arguments, and it was clear that we were 
not making progress on communicating.

Additionally, as I have mentioned in the past, Rajeev and I have a competing 
draft based on a different architecture that we belive is more modular than 
CARD and therefore more appropriate for satisfying both FMIP and 802.21 
(though we will, of course, need to see the 802.21 requirements first before 
we can say definitively). Therefore, I don't think it would be appropriate 
to simply accept CARD as a charter item.

Finally, I am *NOT* going to answer any email you send (and I would 
encourage others also to not do so) unless it makes substantive points about 
why you believe that the architecture Rajeev and I are proposing in the NED 
draft is missing some critical technical point that is important for 
supporting 802.21. Simply sending email over and over saying "CARD is good! 
Use it!" isn't really advancing the technical discussion.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "Petrescu Alexandru-AAP021" 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:13 PM
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter

Hi, Stefano,

Regards,
Ajoy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:36 PM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; Petrescu Alexandru-AAP021;
[email-masked]

Ajoy,

00-CARD_Ov
erview_2.ppt