Subject: [Mipshop] Revised MIPSHOP charter

From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 08:44:36 -0700

Hello folks,

Here is the proposed revised charter with the revised milestones.
Only a few minor changes. 

1. Removed references to additional security mechanisms for HMIPv6.
2. Removed references to MIH Informational elements.
3. Removed a reference to L2 discovery mechanism for MIH server. 
   The assumption is that L2 discovery mechanisms are done in IEEE 
   802.21 WG.
4. Re-worded the paragraph that talks about relation with MOBOPTS 
   IRTF group.

Please review.

Vijay
_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:19:02 -0700

Hi Vijay,

Paragraph 1: " ..in spite of changes in its point of attachment to the
network. These changes may cause packet loss, and also represent overhead
traffic on the network."

We should include delay, as in " These changes may cause delay, packet loss,
and also represent overhead traffic on the network."
One could argue that packet loss is caused by delay in obtaining
connectivity (which is true), but packet loss can also be caused by other
means (such as router buffer overflow). In other words, delay in obtaining
connectivity can cause packet loss, but packet loss may not always be due to
lack of IP connectivity alone.

4. Work on areas of mutual interest to IEEE 802.21 and MIPSHOP:

 * Complete the problem statement and produce the required protocol
   enhancements or specifications for IP-based support of
   Media-Independent Information, Command and Event Services.

   Documents: draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps (Problem Satement),
              draft-ietf-mipshop-mih-support (transport of 802.21
              services over IP, including security aspects)

 Given the above drafts, why not state:

"Complete the problem statement, and a specification on transport and
security of IEEE 802.21 services over IP" ?

The current text is vague.

Regards,

-Rajeev

---

From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:54:38 -0700

Thanks Rajeev. Made the two changes. Here is the revised charter.

Vijay 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rajeev Koodli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 4:19 PM
> To: Vijay Devarapalli; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Revised MIPSHOP charter
> 
> 
> Hi Vijay,
>

---

From: "Rahman, Akbar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:58:46 -0400

Hi Vijay,

I have just one question on the revised charter.  I believe that in
earlier versions there was reference to IPv6 in the name of the working
group.  If I remember correctly, MIPSHOP originally stood for "Mobile
IPv6 Signaling and Handoff Optimization".

Since we now have removed the reference to IPv6 from the title of the
working group, should we also update the scope of the first paragraph to
also refer to IPv4?  I apologize if I missed any discussions on this
topic in previous E-mail chains.

Akbar

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 5:55 PM
To: Rajeev Koodli; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Revised MIPSHOP charter

Vijay

---

From: "Stefano Faccin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 09:47:54 -0700

Akbar,
the current name of the WG ("Mobility for IP: Performance, Signaling and
Handoff Optimization") is the result of last year rechartering, where
the term "Mobile IPv6" was deleted to minimize the dependency of the WG
activities from Mobile IPv6. At the time it was felt that having the
"Mobile IPv6" term in the WG name was too limiting. E.g., when adding
the 802.21-related work, it made no sense to have the group specifically
named after Mobile IPv6, since 802.21 is not tied only to Mobile IPv6.
Therefore, we removed the reference to "Mobile IPv6" as a specific
mobility protocol, but this did not mean we meant to remove the
reference to "IPv6".  The intention was never to expand the focus to
Mobile IPv4. Now, with the current rechartering, we're not proposing any
substantial changes to this part of the charter. I believe we'd
otherwise need extensive discussion in the WG since explicitly expanding
the scope to IPv4 would be a considerable change to the charter. 
Cheers,
Stefano

-----Original Message-----
From: Rahman, Akbar [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:59 AM
To: Vijay Devarapalli
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Revised MIPSHOP charter

Hi Vijay,

Akbar

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 5:55 PM
To: Rajeev Koodli; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Revised MIPSHOP charter

Vijay

---

From: "Rahman, Akbar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:30:35 -0400

Hi Stefano,

Thanks for the clarification.  I am not proposing to re-charter the
group.  My main point was that the first paragraph was very Mobile IPv6
centric and whether we should include Mobile IPv4 in that paragraph for
completeness (as the WG name was no longer MIPv6 specific).  I am fine
if we leave it the way it currently is if that is what the group
previously decided.

Akbar

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefano Faccin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:48 PM
To: Rahman, Akbar; Vijay Devarapalli
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Revised MIPSHOP charter

Akbar,

-----Original Message-----
From: Rahman, Akbar [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:59 AM
To: Vijay Devarapalli
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Revised MIPSHOP charter

Hi Vijay,

Akbar

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 5:55 PM
To: Rajeev Koodli; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Revised MIPSHOP charter

Vijay