Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] WG Announcement of Appeal: 3G Biases in SeaMoby a nd MIP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:44:06 +0300

Hi Phil,

> In a nutshell, my appeal, is that: the SeaMoby and Mobile IP WGs have
> been mis-directed to focus too much on the interests of a 
> group of outside standards development organizations, namely 3GPP 
> (http://www.3gpp.org/) and 3GPP2 (http://www.3gpp2.org/), rather than 
> enhancing the global Internet which is the IETF's primary directive 
> per RFC 2026 section 1.1 which I quote a subsection here for convenience:

First off, I do not know of ANY work that SeaMoby or Mobile IP is doing
for 3GPP.  As said by MANY others, Mobile IP can run over 3GPP networks,
but none of the internal interfaces in the current 3GPP networks use
Mobile IP.  I do not see how any of the work in SeaMoby and
Mobile IP WGs would be comprimised by 3GPP.  In fact, some people 
have brought 3GPP up in the SeaMoby Context Transfer work and the 
consensus has been that the current 3GPP architecture does not
support context transfer.

> I can provide on demand the names of the quoted
> individuals to the ADs or the IESG if an AD or the IESG needs to cross
> reference or ask further questions.

Hopefully, if you do this, you contact the person you are quoting 
beforehand, just to ensure you don't quote them out of text.

> Next Steps

Finally, having followed much of the discussion & work that has 
taken place, I still don't have a clear picture of what it is 
you are striving for.  I think the best way forward would be
for you do document your vision/architecture in an Internet
Draft.

Currently, you have submittend this draft:

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-neumiller-seamoby-cnpmobility-0
0.txt

which expires on May 18th, 2001.  I think that this is a good start
for work within SeaMoby.  Perhaps it would be useful for you to 
update it and/or reissue it.

Other than that, there is the OBAST requirements draft that was issued
last June-ish, but that was, IMO, too vague to base work on.  It also
has expired. Again, if you feel that is the correct target architecture, 
then you should re-issue it and update it.

If you have issued other drafts, please let me know.

I think that this appeal would be much more effective if you document
your work via Internet Drafts.  If you meet with resistance to your
submissions, and you feel that this is the correct direction, then
an appeal would be much more reason (again, in my opinion).

best regards,
John