Subject: [16NG] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-madanapalli-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-01.txt

From: "Syam Madanapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 23:23:18 +0530

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title		: Transmission of IPv4 packets over IEEE 802.16's IP
Convergence Sublayer
	Author(s)	: S. Madanapalli, et al.
	Filename	: draft-madanapalli-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-01.txt
	Pages		: 10
	Date		: 2007-5-18
	
IEEE 802.16 is an air interface specification for wireless broadband
   access.  IEEE has specified the service specific convergence
   sublayers (CS) in the IEEE 802.16 MAC to be used by upper layer
   protocols.  Asynchronous Transfer Mode Convergence Sublayer (ATM CS)
   and Packet Convergence Sublayer (Packet CS) represent the two main
   service specific convergence sublayers for the IEEE 802.16.  The
   packet CS is used for transport for all packet-based protocols such
   as Internet Protocol (IP), IEEE 802.3 (Ethernet) and IEEE 802.1Q
   (VLAN).  The IP specific part of the Packet CS enables transport of
   IPv4 packets directly over the IEEE 802.16 MAC.

   This document specifies the frame format, the Maximum Transmission
   Unit (MTU) and address assignment procedures for transmitting IPv4
   packets over IP Convergence Sublayer (IPCS) of the IEEE 802.16.  This
   document also provides the details of why the ARP cannot be sent over
   the IEEE 802.16 links using IPCS and a recommendation for this.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-madanapalli-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-01.txt

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng

---

From: Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 07:35:12 +0900

Folks, 

This is call for 16ng WG adoption on the IPv4CS deliverable: 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-madanapalli-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot
-16-ipcs-01.txt

The relevant charter item is as follows:

- Produce "IPv4 over IEEE 802.16 Networks in conjunction with IPv4 CS"
to define IPv4 operation including the transmission of IPv4 over IEEE 
802.16 links, ARP operation, Stateful Address Configuration (DHCPv4), 
Broadcast, Multicast, etc [Proposed Standard RFC]

This document was presented at 16ng sessions several
times before WG adoption. Given the interest of 16ng WG,
chairs are now soliciting this adoption on the mailing list. 

Should you have any strong concern/question/feedback
on this document adoption at this stage, please let us know.

This call will end on 26th of May (AOE: Anytime on Earth)

-- Daniel Park & Gabriel Montenegro
   Chairs, 16NG Working Group

---

From: "Narvaez, Paolo \(Paolo\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:27:17 -0500

I am generally in favor of adopting an IPv4CS document along these
lines.

I do have some questions on the subnet model being specified:

1. Is the statement (section 6) that each MS "will be" in a different
subnet meant to be interpreted as normative or optional? Why not use the
appropriate SHALL, SHOULD, or whatever term is appropriate? 

2. What is the size of the specified per-MS subnet? Is it up to the
implementation?

Regards,
Paolo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Park [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 6:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [16NG] Call for WG adoption: 
> draft-madanapalli-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-01
> 
> Folks, 
> 
> 802.16 links, ARP operation, Stateful Address Configuration 
> (DHCPv4), Broadcast, Multicast, etc [Proposed Standard RFC]
> 
> This document was presented at 16ng sessions several times 
> before WG adoption. Given the interest of 16ng WG, chairs are 
> now soliciting this adoption on the mailing list. 
> 
> Should you have any strong concern/question/feedback on this 
> document adoption at this stage, please let us know.
>

---

From: "Syam Madanapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:19:35 +0530

Hi Paolo,

Thanks for the comments.

> appropriate SHALL, SHOULD, or whatever term is appropriate?

It can be made normative, as I see this is the only viable option for IPv4 CS.
Ethernet CS is the best option for having multiple MSs on the the same subnet.

> 2. What is the size of the specified per-MS subnet? Is it up to the

I think /31 works, but again do we need to say this? This should be
same as any other p2p networks.

Thanks,
Syam

---

From: Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 11:43:22 +0900

This draft is approved as a new 16NG working group item.

Authors, please submit it (draft-ietf-16ng-xxx) to the IETF 
via chairs as soon as possible.

-- Daniel Park 

> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:35 AM
> To: [email-masked]