Subject: [16NG] What to do with "IP deployment over IEEE 802.16 networks"?

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:04:45 -0700 (PDT)

<WG chair hat off>

Regarding the last remaining item in our charter, "IP deployment over IEEE 802.16 networks", I'd like
to repeat some comments I made at the mike last week.

I believe we should drop this.

Several reasons:
    - despite it being in the charter for many months (years?) now, we don't even have a draft
    - I sense serious lack of interest
    - the other remaining drafts, IPv4 CS and ETH CS are much more advanced and will likely go to 
        the IESG soon. There is a very good chance that they will be IESG approved before Dublin.
    - keeping the WG open just for the deployment draft does not seem like a good investment of IETF
        cycles. 
    - much of the content has overlap with the deployment draft in v6ops (except the v4 aspects, but still),
        and it is questionable whether the content cannot be obtained via white papers, WiMAX documents,
        etc. One can argue that it is better obtained via those sources.

Do others agree with this assessment?

-gabriel

</WG chair hat off>

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

---

From: "Jihoon Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:14:25 +0900

Hi Gabriel,

At this point, the contents of IP deployment over 802.16 draft will be so
overlapped with other drafts. I think that this is the main reason that no
draft has been comming out. Although I presented the necessity of the IP
deployment scenarios at the Vancouver meeting, it is still questionable for
the issues of deployment scenarios to be a separate draft. I agree with you.

Best regards,
Ji Hoon

---

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:17:14 -0500

I agree that the document can be dropped without necessarily impacting the
charter.
Also I do not see the document really adding any significant value to
deployments.

-Raj

---

From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Muenich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:06:29 +0100

I fully agree with the views of Gabriel. In particular I would emphasize
that there are some other standardization organizations providing
detailed descriptions of IEEE802.16 deployments, so there is not much
need to create descriptions in IETF.
 
Bye
Max

________________________________

From: ext gabriel montenegro [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:05 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: What to do with "IP deployment over IEEE 802.16 networks"?

<WG chair hat off>

Regarding the last remaining item in our charter, "IP deployment over
IEEE 802.16 networks", I'd like
to repeat some comments I made at the mike last week.

Several reasons:
    - despite it being in the charter for many months (years?) now, we
don't even have a draft
    - I sense serious lack of interest
    - the other remaining drafts, IPv4 CS and ETH CS are much more
advanced and will likely go to 
       the IESG soon. There is a very good chance that they will be IESG
approved before Dublin.
    - keeping the WG open just for the deployment draft does not seem
like a good investment of IETF
       cycles. 
    - much of the content has overlap with the deployment draft in v6ops
(except the v4 aspects, but still),
       and it is questionable whether the content cannot be obtained via
white papers, WiMAX documents,
       etc. One can argue that it is better obtained via those sources.

-gabriel

</WG chair hat off>

---

From: Hongseok Jeon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:22:35 +0900

I agree with the opinion of gabriel.
I also think other drafts have already presented similar contents.

BR,
Hongseok Jeon

On 2008. 03. 19, at 오전 10:04, gabriel montenegro wrote:

>     - much of the content has overlap with the deployment draft in  
> v6ops (except the v4 aspects, but still),

---

From: Bruno Sousa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:54:33 +0000

Hi

I've not been present in the last IETF meeting, so my opinion will be 
based on the reasons pointed by Gabriel in the email.

I agree that the "IP deployment over IEEE 802.16 networks" overlaps with 
the work of other WG, namely the v6ops. But this applies only for IPv6.
I agree that the "IP deployment over IEEE 802.16 networks" for IPv4 
networks can be 'obtained' from other sources, such as the WiMAX Forum, 
but shouldn't this deployment  be specified inside IETF?

Regards,
Bruno Sousa

gabriel montenegro wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>