Subject: [Seamoby] Progress on WG Last Call for draft-ietf-paging-protocol-assessment-01.txt

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:28:40 -0800

Folks,

We are midway through the WG last call period on the paging assessment
draft.

We have received one suggestion from a WG member that draft-guri replace
draft-renker as the choice for the base paging draft, but no one else in
the WG has so far agreed with this suggestion

We have also received a suggestion from the same WG member that there be
one paging draft for MIPv4 and one paging draft for MIPv6. Another
member responded that other IETF protocols have support for IPv4 and
IPv6 within the same protocol without having to split, and it is not
clear why paging should not also. AnotherWG member expressed the opinion
that it would be useful to be able to use particular features of IPv4 or
IPv6. The WG chairs believe that it is premature at this time to split
the draft since the technical issues are not yet clear, but we would
like to hear any further opinions on the matter in there are any. So
far, we do not see any concensus on splitting the draft.

Other than that, there were no further issues.

WG last call ends on Mon. next week (Feb. 25, 2002). At that time, as
editor of the draft, I will be inserting those changes that have working
group concensus. The intent of the assessment draft is to express WG
concensus to the IESG about what draft should be the starting point for
the paging protocol design. If you have any suggestions for changes or
reasons why the decision made in the assessment draft, as it now stands,
should be changed, please express them within the next week. Thanx.

                jak

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

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:31:22 -0600

>the WG has so far agreed with this suggestion
draft-ohba was also proposed to be the base draft.

>clear why paging should not also. 
>
I missed this member's comment, can you please repost it.

>AnotherWG member expressed the opinion
>IPv6. 
Again I missed this one.

>The WG chairs believe that it is premature at this time to split
The point raised is not to split "the" draft. The point is IETF protocol 
standards define a single protocol so that  interoperability tests can 
be made on the implementations. It could have some text on the 
implications on a different protocol but this text can only be 
considered informational. No interoperability on it.

-- 
Behcet

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:57:05 -0600

Folks,
   Sometime back Pat asked the question of which draft to take as the 
base. I think that this question should be revisited based on the 
requirements 4.7 and 4.8.

  Contrary to the ordinary belief, I think (of course I may be wrong) 
that there is no single IP Paging protocol, requirements 4.7 and 4.8 are 
pointing to 4 different IP Paging protocols.

  If we may change Pat's question to which drafts to take as the base 
then there are natural solutions:

- I hereby suggest draft-ohba as the base draft for mip indepedent IPv4 
based solution.THis draft is mainly based on IPv4 and it does not 
attempt to integrate with MIPv4. There are some problems in its 
architecture but these can be addressed in the next version.

- I hereby suggest draft-guri as the base for mip independent IPv6 based 
solution. This draft is based on IPv6 and no integration with MIPv6 is 
attempted. However its architecture must be modified and streamlined 
with modified draft-ohba.

For MIPv4 and MIPv6 based solutions, I have trouble in suggesting the 
base drafts but the natural solution seems to suggest that

- draft-renker may be modified towards a MIPv4 based solution (please 
consider LMM not home agent  based architecture).

-draft-sarikaya and draft-koodli may take a MIPv6 based solution, there 
are already some similarities and taking in close consideration of :LMM 
requirements and any follow up developments.

Regards,

-- 
Behcet

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:26:44 -0800

Behcet,

> draft-ohba was also proposed to be the base draft.

I do not recall having see this proposal during the current last call
period, which started on Feb. 11. However, I will take this email as a
proposal from you that the draft-ohba be used. So now we have two
proposals for a different base draft, draft-ohba and draft-guri.

Any other comment from WG members on these suggestions?

> >that it would be useful to be able to use particular features of IPv4
or

The archives for Seamoby are at
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/seamoby/ . You can find the
references there.

> considered informational. No interoperability on it.

Any other comment on this proposal from other working group members?

                jak