Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:16:01 -0400

James, 

Of course requirements MUST be discussed at technical level. Also, no
one is telling that 802.21 MUST use existing IETF protocol.  We will
have to evaluate why existing IETF protocol is not enough or cannot be
modified
solve the problem. This would avoid duplication and save our time. 

Regards,
Ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 1:03 PM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] new charter

I agree that having 802.21 define requirements and bring them to IETF is
the 
right procedure. But let's keep the requirements at a technical level. 
Requirements such as "must use an existing IETF document" are
inappropriate.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:59 AM
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:39 AM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter

Ajoy,

> It is very much possible that 802.21
> will come
> to IETF with a request to make enhancement to existing protocol or
> define new protocol. But I guess it may be too early to make that
> decision.

Sure, definitely. However, the proposed charter does not preclude this
at all, actually it makes it possible for IETf to do the work needed for
802.21.

At the same time we may have some interested parties that may also
propose requirements in MIPSHOP on such solutions, and I don't think we
should preclude that.

Ajoy-> I would request interested party to work with 802.21 to define
requirements. IMHO, defining requirements at two different places will
create more confusion.

Stefano

_______________________________________________
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: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:52:21 -0700

It seems to me that if 802.21 wants IETF to work on a protocol, it should 
bring in the requirements then have the discussion in the MIPSHOP WG what 
the appropriate protocol is. On the other hand, if 802.21 wants to do the 
protocol itself, then it can do the design itself and IETF doesn't need to 
be involved.

I think what I would not find acceptable is for 802.21 to come to IETF and 
say "this nonstandards track protocol must be made into a standards track 
protocol without any changes". IETF typically doesn't rubber stamp the 
decisions of other SDOs.

All this would be much easier if we had a liason letter from 802.21 
explaining exactly what it wanted.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter

James,

Regards,
Ajoy

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 1:03 PM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; [email-masked];

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:39 AM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; [email-masked];
[email-masked]

Ajoy,

Stefano

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 14:12:49 +0200

James Kempf wrote:
> It seems to me that if 802.21 wants IETF to work on a protocol, it 
> should bring in the requirements then have the discussion in the
> MIPSHOP WG what the appropriate protocol is. On the other hand, if
> 802.21 wants to do the protocol itself, then it can do the design
> itself and IETF doesn't need to be involved.
> 
> I think what I would not find acceptable is for 802.21 to come to
> IETF and say "this nonstandards track protocol must be made into a
> standards track protocol without any changes".

I understand that and I share that perspective.

One possible way to efficiently liaise 802.21 activities with mipshop
activities, and to avoid the situation described above, could be for the
mipshop Charter to suggest the following:

"This WG meetings will offer presentation slots for reports from the
 802.21 TG whenever 802.21 representatives need.  The WG will be
 solicited feedback on these presentations and will provide technical
 advice when requested.  The 802.21 activities will be described in
 personal Internet Drafts, and they will not become mipshop WG items."

I think this will help interactions between the two groups.  Adding
anything more than that to the current charter and knowing the current
advancement of 802.21 is probably a little bit premature.

Later on, when 802.21 requirements are set within 802.21, then WG items
I-Ds for 802.21 could be stated in the Charter.

Just some thoughts on a possibility,

Alex