Subject: Reminder: ForCes Recommendation

From: "Avri Doria" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:34:46 -0400

Hi,

Just a reminde, the comment period for this recommendation
ends on  18 June.

Thanks

a.
-------- Original Message --------
From: "Doria, Avri [BL60:AA50:EXCH]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: ForCes Recommendation
To: [email-masked]

Hi,

One of the chartered items of the GSMP groups is the following:

            Analyze role of GSMP for control element separation 
            and make recommendation as to a separate WG for extending 
            GSMP for this

At the last meeting, there was an extended session to discuss this
issue.

The conclusion of that meeting (taken from the minutes) was as follows:

            The general room response was that ForCES should first 
            develop requirements and functional model and that it was 
            too early to be leaning towards any particular protocol 
            (solution). Once technical requirements and model are 
            defined then Forces would compare them against GSMP and 
            make decisions.

It remains for the WG to make its recommendation to the IESG regarding
the separation of control element.

I would like to list to discuss the following text as the possible
recommendation of this group.  Once we reach rough consensus on
appropriate wording, we will be able to forward the recommendation
on to our ADs and Technical Advisor.

          The GSMP WG suggests that requirements for the separation
          of an IP control element from the forwarding element be
          first documented by another WG, e.g. the proposed ForCes
          group.  Only after these requirements have been established
          and approved, will it be time to review GSMP as a possible
          candidate solution for those requirements.

The open discussion period for this issue is scheduled to last until
18 June.  At that time, the rough consensus of the WG will be passed
on to the ADs and the Technical Advisor of the GSMP group.

thanks

a.
Co-chair GSMP Wg
-- 

Avri Doria
+1 401 663 5024
===============

---

From: "tom worster" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 08:41:51 -0400

>             defined then Forces would compare them against GSMP and 

the above statement has been watered down somewhat in the 

>           candidate solution for those requirements.

as i've said before, i feel that some understanding of 
the functional model is needed before a judgement on a
suitable protocol can be attempted. the proposed text 
says that we won't attempt to decide if gsmp is the
right home until after the requirements are approved,
which is good but not enough. the meeting notes, otoh, 
say that development of a functional model is an 
additional precondition, a step that has been dropped
from the proposed text.

c u
fsb

---

From: "Avri Doria" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:00:43 -0400

Hi,

The watering down is due to the fact that the charter for the ForCES 
work is not really in the purview of the GSMP group.
I did not think it was up to the GSMP WG to decide how the proposed
group arrived at the requirements.

Do you have a proposed wording change?

a.
-- 

Avri Doria
+1 401 663 5024
===============
http://www.aidsride.org/new/northeast/index.htm
Rider : 1063

---

From: "tom worster" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:35:35 -0400

From: Avri Doria
> group arrived at the requirements.

i don't think there is any need to. the question for
the gsmp wg is whether or not gsmp is a suitable
vehicle for the kind of communications that will be
required by forces. so information on the nature of 
the communications is important and the gsmp wg can 
say what information they need without saying how
forces provides it. the proposed text 

>           candidate solution for those requirements.

seems to say that the forces wg's requirements would 
be enough. 

> Do you have a proposed wording change?

no, i don't. but perhaps recasting it in terms of
requirements on a protocol (as opposed to the forces
wg's requirements on separation) would work.

c u
fsb

---

From: "Avri Doria" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:55:31 -0400

Hi,

Based on the comments received, I have reworked the wording slightly.

As the 2 week comment period is over, I propose send the following
to the ADs on Thursday 21 June.  

         The GSMP WG suggests that requirements for one or more
         protocols to manage and control the separation
         of an IP control element from the forwarding element be
         first documented by another WG, e.g. the proposed ForCES
         group.  Only after these requirements have been established
         and approved, will it be time to review GSMP as a possible
         candidate solution for those requirements.

Please send any objections to the wording change to the list in the 
next 2 days.

--
Avri Doria
+1 401 663 5024
===============
co-chair GSMP WG