Subject: RE: [Mipshop] ES and CS within the MIPSHOP charter

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:40:23 -0400

The other is due to the tone of the interaction from the CARD side
which, in my opinion, has been quite competitive and not particularly
conducive to 
collaborative work. 

Ajoy-> This is not good representation of CARD folks. CARD folks are
very much conducive to collaboration work. Being involved in 802.21 and
CARD, my primary goal is to ensure that 802.21 IS protocol is completed
as soon as possible so that something good can be accomplished. 
But from beginning I have noticed that CARD is being ignored for no
technical reason. I did not find any mention of CARD in proposed 802.21
IETF BOF. It was being portrayed as if nothing exist in IETF that can be
used to address or starting point for 802.21 IS protocol definition. To
me this is not a productive way to get thing done in any standard forum.
We should always leverage from previous work so that we can make
meaningful progress. If we don't then we end up defining new things that
goes no where. 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexandru Petrescu" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Alexandru Petrescu" 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] ES and CS within the MIPSHOP charter

> [email-masked] wrote:
>> Alex, as for the IS we already have approved work items in the
>> charter, therefore I would not discuss anymore whether MIPSHOP will
>> work on 802.21 IS or not.
>
> Ok.
>
>> As for ES and CS, the discussion is definitely still open. Should the
>>  WG decide to tackle also ES and CS, I do not believe that the number
>>  of work item would be unrealistic.
>
> For each work item there is a number of authors, but there should also
> be a number of reviewers ready to read deep through the document.
> Additionally, knowing that IS is targetting PS (Proposed Standard)
there
> should exist some inter-operable implementation experience prior to
> going to IESG.  That is two different implementations (even if only
> prototypical), it's good to have.
>
> Is the thinking that this could be achieved for IS, ES and CS prior
> to IESG July 2006.
>
> That's what I meant being maybe too much work.
>
>> As for protocol selection, there are various solutions that can be
>> used to solve a stall. E.g. CAPWAP had a very formal protocol
>> selection procedure that could be adopted also in MIPSHOP if the WG
>> decides that's the way to go.
>
> On this topic - yes I mainly agree with you, there exist ways to
converge.
>
> Usually the goal of doing protocol selection is to get people to talk
to
> each other, not necessarily to select a 'winner' solution.  Sometimes
> these selection steps end up in a DT being formed with people from all
> camps.  Sometimes these DTs are too big, sometimes just right.
> Sometimes they deliver other times they don't.
>
> Assuming that a certain protocol is best is a wrong approach at IETF, 
> IMHO.
>
> Fully exercising some power of responsibility one may have at IETF
> ('muscle flexing') indicates there's something urgent somewhere, and
> probably something wrong too.
>
> That said, may ask again - why not BoF?
>
> The only reasons I could see are:
>
> -802.21 is in deep need of something from IETF.  BoF may take too long
> for that something to be delivered.
> -the answers for "why not BoF" already exist and I've missed some
> decisions prior to Paris.
> -mipshop urgently needs 802.21 WG items.
>
> Which of those reasons is truer?
>
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 

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

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:15:48 +0200

Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 wrote:
>  conducive to collaborative work.
> 
>  very much conducive to collaboration work.

Ok, so CARD folks are open to collaboration.  That's good.

> Being involved in 802.21 and CARD, my primary goal is to ensure that 
> 802.21 IS protocol is completed as soon as possible so that something
> good can be accomplished.

Ok.

> technical reason. I did not find any mention of CARD in proposed 
> 802.21 IETF BOF. It was being portrayed as if nothing exist in IETF 
> that can be used to address or starting point for 802.21 IS protocol 
> definition.

That was probably not the intention.  I think the MIHEP BoF did not
actually even happen.  I imagine one of the intentions of the BoF was to
show not only that CARD is not enough for 802.21 but all other IETF
protocols are not enough for 802.21 so new protocols are needed.  Most
BoFs do just that, that's the main goal.

> To me this is not a productive way to get thing done in any standard 
> forum.  We should always leverage from previous work so that we can 
> make meaningful progress. If we don't then we end up defining new 
> things that goes no where.

Ajoy, CARD is a good protocol.  It has EXPERIMENTAL status.  I think
many of its concepts have been discussed in SeaMoby.  I think it resumes
the earlier ideas that are now in FMIP: triggered handover,
network-controlled handover, inter-AR communication.  I think the FMIPv6
draft should be edited to acknowledge ideas and contributors of similar
work, including CARD.

Would you say the same about e.g. NED?  Would you identify the positive
aspects of NED?

I think that what has been said on the WG is that if some of the CARD
proponents insist on speaking 'CARD' and nothing else then there are
means to pit 'CARD' against some other protocols, with CARD probably not
being selected.  What has been forgot to be said is that in case that
CARD proponents stop insisting about 'CARD', and accept changes of names
and few architectural principles, then they'd be happy to accept the
experience.

For example, if a CARD author would help advice the mipshop WG
about the use of FMIP-like proposals on WiMax and cdma2000 then that
would be fine I guess.  A mipshop Chair is currently gauging consensus
on that specific topic.  Only two members responded to that; I
think it's difficult for a Chair to gauge consensus when only two
replies out of a big membership group, hence the need.

I mean that's how I understand what I read here.

Alex

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:35:26 +0300

Hello Alexandru,

I am hopelessly far behind on this discussion, but
I have to at least respond to this one passage:

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

>                                I think it resumes
No, those ideas did _not_ come from CARD.  I was there.
I think a lot of people had the intention to make sure that there
was no _necessary_ relationship between FMIPv6 and CARD.
I do think we may find in the future that other techniques for
identifying target routers may be of use with FMIPv6.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:29:22 +0200

Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello Alexandru,
> 
> I am hopelessly far behind on this discussion,

:-) sorry for generating so much of it

>> I think it resumes the earlier ideas that are now in FMIP:
>> triggered handover, network-controlled handover, inter-AR
>> communication.  I think the FMIPv6 draft should be edited to
>> acknowledge ideas and contributors of similar work, including CARD.
>> 
> No, those ideas did _not_ come from CARD.  I was there. I think a lot
> of people had the intention to make sure that there was no
> _necessary_ relationship between FMIPv6 and CARD.

Charles, thank you for replying.  I may have wrong rememberings, indeed.
 I assisted at SeaMoby developments from a relative distance, I was not
involved.  And it was wrong from my part to suggest FMIPv6 original
ideas are based on CARD ideas.

However, it can honestly be said that CARD development happened at about
the same time as FMIPv6, in the SeaMoby WG.  Which makes CARD "related
work" to FMIPv6.  Simply looking at dates and message diagrams indicates so.

Several drafts and RFCs have "Contributors" sections, "Acknowledgement"
sections, and many authors identify prior or related work in these
sections, to the best of their knowledge.

But if this suggestion looks bad then forget it...

Alex

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:04:31 -0700

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

>  I think

hmm.. This is wrong both historically and in terms of roles. FMIPv6 
started late 2000/early 2001 and the proxy messages, HI/HAck, 
network-controlled handovers have been around since then.

There was no CARD then.

So, I am amazed that you have arrived at this conclusion! Sigh...

-Rajeev

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:11:32 -0700

Gentlemen,

Let's leave history to the History Channel.

The issue before us is what to include in the MIPSHOP charter for 802.21 and 
FMIP w.r.t. handover information services.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rajeev Koodli" <[email-masked]>
To: "Alexandru Petrescu" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "'James 
Kempf'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] ES and CS within the MIPSHOP charter