Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Concensus Call:Reaching Closure on Paging Decision

From: "Purnadi Rene (NRC/Dallas)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:09:26 -0600

James,

We vote to re-open the selection phase. By the way, Rene Purnadi is one
of the author in the draft koodli and his involvement in this vote is
not based on 'sour grapes' but to seek a valid selection procedure.

Thank you.

Stefano Faccin, Rajeev Koodli, Franck Le, Jari T. Malinen, Rene Purnadi
and Srinivas Sreemanthula
Nokia Research Center

-----Original Message-----
From: ext James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:18 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Allison Mankin
Subject: [Seamoby] Concensus Call:Reaching Closure on Paging Decision

All,

Pat and I made a selection for what to start with, not what to end with.
The WG will determine what the final technology looks like.

1) If you want to support or disagree with the selection of the starting
 ID, say so now please.

2) If there is not consensus that we should re-open the selection phase,
then we will move forward based on the selection in the next few days.

Thanx.

            jak

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

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

---

From: "Purnadi Rene (NRC/Dallas)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:09:26 -0600

James,

Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: ext James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:18 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Allison Mankin
Subject: [Seamoby] Concensus Call:Reaching Closure on Paging Decision

All,

Thanx.

            jak

---

From: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:19:11 -0800

Would it be possible to have folks speak for themselves? It would
sure be easier than to get into a debate later about folks not
agreeing with their comments that were posted by a third party.

PatC

- -----Original Message-----
From: Purnadi Rene (NRC/Dallas) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 4:09 PM
To: 'ext James Kempf'; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Allison Mankin
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Concensus Call:Reaching Closure on Paging
Decision

James,

We vote to re-open the selection phase. By the way, Rene Purnadi is
one of the author in the draft koodli and his involvement in this
vote is not based on 'sour grapes' but to seek a valid selection
procedure.

Thank you.

Stefano Faccin, Rajeev Koodli, Franck Le, Jari T. Malinen, Rene
Purnadi and Srinivas Sreemanthula Nokia Research Center

- -----Original Message-----

All,

Pat and I made a selection for what to start with, not what to end
with. The WG will determine what the final technology looks like.

1) If you want to support or disagree with the selection of the
starting  ID, say so now please.

2) If there is not consensus that we should re-open the selection
phase, then we will move forward based on the selection in the next
few days.

Thanx.

            jak

---

From: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:10:23 -0800

Right but the WG chairs are just giving folks a little more time for
those that were off last week. Then, as you state, we can decide what
the right direction should be.

PatC

- -----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 9:05 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Concensus Call:Reaching Closure on Paging
Decision

Dear all,
  What we need right now is the declaration by WG chairs of the
result 
of the consensus call, i.e. reselection/design team.
Then we can discuss the details of the type Baba talks in his email.
Regards

Baba S wrote:

>Hi Srini,
>
>I also like design team idea, as I have the same
>view about the re-selection with you and Stefano.
>But my problem is the fact that I'm not sure about
>the details of design team.
>

>--behcet

---

From: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:43:51 -0800

You said "Can someone tell me how can we integrate these drafts by
giving some text to Marco? "

Which is *Exactly* what we have been trying to achieve. The deal is,
however, that we need a working base. Just pulling text from all over
will never work well, so we needed a starting point. What Jim,
Allison and I had decided was that Renker was the *starting point*
and that problems that were identified would be fixed, probably by
pulling text from other proposals, as the need arises.

However, as I've stated numerous times, we are looking at alternative
ways to move forward.

PatC
- -----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 3:46 PM
To: Jari T. Malinen
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Concensus Call:Reaching Closure on Paging
Decision

Dear All,
  This is a mail on TECHNICAL issues. It may refer to the procedural
issues when relevant
I looked at the drafts first time seriously!
First of all from size perspective: draft-renker 59 pages
draft-ohba 52 pages
draft-koodli 31 pages
draft-sarikaya 22 pages
draft-guri 16 pages.
  Combining all these would give a document of 180 pages of extreme
complexity and confusion. So I agree with Jari, attaching text from
different proposals written with different background is simply NOT
going to work.
  Now, draft-renker starts with a very simple architecture: of
PA -- AR -- MN
using only PA entity of the requirements document. The rest of
draft-renker after page 11  is on Mobile IPv6 mapping. Draft-sarikaya
is also based on Mobile IPv6 and so these two drafts should have been
treated in a similar way. What do you say Srinivas? i.e most possibly
refuse both.
  Next draft-ohba,  it has DMA, PA and TA of the requirements draft.
The basic architecture has the DMA on the link which is I think an
architectural problem and uses only TA. Remember this draft is called
Last Hop DMHA Protocol. Next, draft-ohba tries to handle host
mobility and there draft-ohba introduces PA. There is a long list of
the states maintained in each entity which takes several pages. There
is also a description of an 802.11 implementation in the annex.
  Next draft-koodli, it has PF entity which probably stands for DMA,
TA and PA which is in charge of paging and the ARs on subnets with
MNs. The mobility is handled by the L2 and L3 paging areas but only
textual description. From p.10 onwards it covers security and from
p.15 onwards it covers mapping to MIPv6, regional registration and TO
HMIPv6.
  However, draft-sarikaya completely integrates paging to MIPv6 and
HMIPv6 (as such it is not the only draft that covers HMIPv6).
  Draft-guri is completely on the architectural entities of the
requirements draft. It uses DMA, PA and TA. It defines a model for L2
and L3 paging areas. It is a complete IP paging protocol independent
of MIP.

  Can someone tell me how can we integrate these drafts by giving
some text to Marco? Do you think that I am rigid and non conciliatory
Jari?

Jari T. Malinen wrote:

All,
Well, the chairs asked who is planning to implement a
possiblestandard in the area in a product any time soon...I did not
see manyhands going up...in fact I did not see any.
At this stage, what would be the risks in products? Would therenot be
some research prototypes first when the protocol startsto show signs
of consolidation?
My main point, however, was that I do not see how any process
willallow you to go forward given the current climate. Anyway, I have
nointention or power to stop you so good luck.
I am more optimistic. If grievances for process and participationare
aired openly now, and everybody's concerns are addressed whileall
understanding that their proposal (mostly) alone will not make
it,this could also bring together a coauthoring design team willing
todefend a common text, a compromise, yes, but adopted by all.As a
side note, I appreciate Marco's comments on being openand have no
objections seeing him edit the text. If all havethe urge to go
forward, it is a matter of definition, whether we"officially" go from
draft-renker, or from an empty proposal. Withthe knowledge that it
will anyway take big chuncks from draft-renker as well as from other
drafts, some signs of willingness tocompromise from certain parties
(wink, wink) might move thingsahead.. With Marco's comment and wg
chairs' recommendations inmind, it will anyway be a puzzle with
discussions how to put thepieces 
together.
RegardsGeorge
BR,-Jari
- - -----Original Message-----From: Marcus Brunner
[mailto:[email-masked]]Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 11:38
AMTo: George Tsirtsis; [email-masked]: RE: [Seamoby]
Concensus Call:Reaching Closure on PagingDecisionGeorge,If there is
no need, there would not have been 5 proposals and thatkind
ofdiscussion, because nobody would care about the outcome.Marcus-
- --On Monday, January 21, 2002 6:29 PM -0500 George
Tsirtsis<[email-masked]> wrote:
- -----Original Message-----From: Behcet Sarikaya
[mailto:[email-masked]]Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002
11:04 PMTo: Pat R. CalhounCc: [email-masked]: Re: [Seamoby]
Concensus Call:Reaching Closure on PagingDecision...- Completely
dropping this work item, is this an option?GT> I will risk the
following opinion since I have been followingthis discussion for some
time: I like the option above. Given thelevel of resentment between
people in this sub-group I can not seehow this work will be
successful no matter what the process is. Anyprocesses is flawed
unless people want to work with it.Do not despair, the work item will
reincarnate it self when thereis actual need for
it.George____________
___________________________________Seamoby mailing
[email-masked]://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
- - --------------------------------------Dr. Marcus BrunnerNetwork
LaboratoriesNEC Europe Ltd.E-Mail: [email-masked]:   
http://www.ccrle.nec.de/personal home page:
http://www.brubers.org/marcus-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version:
PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgp.com>iQA/AwUBPE1Q4akwWXc3MfAbEQJW1ACgghEo7z0+qXSRrZBy9f
aHRE5dkkkAoONFdiXAng3tmaaDh/t5qiv1tO7W=MXnq-----END PGP
SIGNATURE-----_______________________________________________Seamoby
mailing
[email-masked]://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
_______________________________________________Seamoby mailing
[email-masked]://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

- -- 
Behcet Sarikaya
Network Strategy Group, Mobile Networking Team
Alcatel USA M/S 026
1000 Coit Road  PB7
Plano, TX 75075 USA
Email: [email-masked]
Phone: (972) 477 2794 Fax: (972) 519 2460