Subject: [seamoby] Context Transfer Meeting Minutes Requirements Meeting Kick-Off!

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:30:26 -0600

Meeting Minutes for Context Transfer Meeting March 12, 2001 14:00 UTC.

In attendence
--------------------
Rajeev Koodlee
Sharif M. Shahrier
Jukka Manner
Peter Lei
Govind Christian
Madjid Nakhjiri
Gary Kenward
Theo Pagtzis
Michael Thomas
Hamid Sayed
Phil Neumiller

Minutes

+++++++

First order of business hellos.

Agenda bashing.

Talked about nominating a new draft editor.

3 people volunteered, Madjid (half-time) was disqualified.

and Hamid and Shairf.

We can't get hold of Henrik!

Madjid may need to prepare slides for the CT problem statement

presentation at IETF 50.

Someone offered up a personal draft.  It was suggested that to

make the SeaMoby design team "look" more like a co-hesive

team it would be better to have the work reviewed inside the

design team before submitting the draft to the IETF.  It was

felt that the group as a whole was not ready to submit a

draft.  The design team also wants to avoid the dueling

draft phenomena and the un-necessary editorial work of

combining drafts later.

The dicsussion of "what is a requirement" came up.  I was

pretty surprised at this.  For one, requirements work is not

un-precedented in the IETF at all.  There is a huge amount

of it in fact.  Check out these fine examples:

ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std4.txt
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1122.txt
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1123.txt
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3067.txt
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2906.txt
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2882.txt
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2805.txt
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2779.txt

My all time favorite book on requirements is:

Exploring Requirements : Quality Before Design
by Donald C. Gause, Gerald M. Weinberg
- Its great!

The discussion meandered from there into "what is
context".  Of course it got into what can we can
assume about the architecture:

Then the people they wondered and they said

well what if its peer-to-peer (and phil said yeah!)
and somebody said what if its centralized (and phil made a
barfing sound!)
and somebody said what if its client-server

and someboby (in a very calm and reassuring voice) said
clearly we will need to consider the context transfer
requirements in terms of different mobility network
architectures.

Somewhere in this part of the discussion there was a
discusion of  contex transfer triggers.  Someone
mentioned tying them to handover and actually tying the
CT to mobility signalling messages.  I almost fell out
of  my chair.  I looked up in the sky and said
YEEEEAAASSSs.  These guys have got it!!!!!

Then Phil said yes and also in the case of

MANETS, micro-mobility, and macro-mobility.

The the people they wondered and they said

Oh no, not manets! but others they said yes, there was
much confusion among the designers...  Someone mentioned
GPRS and Phil become ugly at the mention of GPSRs.
I commend Gary here for bringing order to the onslaught of
chaos that errupted.

The conversation slowly drifted to the actual nature of context.
Whether context should/could be negotiable chunks.  What types
of context would be transferred but this quickly digressed
into a discussion of the temporal aspects i.e. asycnchronous
versus sychronous context transfer methods and Gary quickly
grasped hold of the meandering meeting again.

The meeting then ended with some categorization of high level
bullets that would likely be stakes in the ground for the eventual
context transfer draft

Framework
Functionality
QoS
Robust Transport Protocol
Security
Seperable Context Parts
Negotiation (CNP draft (Extract some requirements))
Evaluation

The CT DT will meet again Monday following the IETF.

As always if you find any errors in these somewhat exagerated
minutes please post followups to the main list.

BTW, I spilled tea all over today's minutes and they are all
washed out so the quality has suffered greatly.  I apologize
for this.

Thank you,

Phil Neumiller