Subject: [netlmm] On Other SDO Discussions

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 19:33:39 -0800

The discussion on what SDOs need and in what time frame needs to stop
now.  It isn't helping us make any progress.

3gpp and 3gpp2 have official liaisons to the IETF.  3gpp2 communicated
through an official liaison before our session in San Diego that they
would like the IETF to produce a standard for proxy MIP.  3gpp maintains
a list of what they would like to see from the IETF and they have also
communicated their desire to see a standard for PMIP.  The IETF does not
have an official liaison relationship with the WiMAX forum.  They
nonetheless sent a message about what they would like to see and some
questions.  All this information has already been posted here, on the
mailing list. 

Without singling out any messages posted to the NETLMM mailing list in
recent days, it is important to recognize that we cannot treat mailing
list postings from individuals as representing the views of any other
SDO.  We must treat people as individual contributors to the mailing
list and take the discussions for what they are worth as individual
contributions.  Please do not continue posting on the thread about other
SDOs - if you have other topics, please re-name the subject
appropriately. 

We have posted the proposed agenda for the meeting in Prague.  Let's
focus on how we get the tasks at hand completed. 

Regards,

Phil and Vidya

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:54:15 +0100

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> 3gpp and 3gpp2 have official liaisons to the IETF.  3gpp2 
> communicated through an official liaison before our session in San 
> Diego that they would like the IETF to produce a standard for proxy 
> MIP.  3gpp maintains a list of what they would like to see from the 
> IETF and they have also communicated their desire to see a standard 
> for PMIP.

The fact that 3gpp/2 maintains a list with their desires makes these
desires no more than just desires; in no case requirements to NETLMM WG.
  These lists are _not_ Best Common Practice.  The relationship between
3gpp/2 and IETF is described in RFC3131 and RFC3113.  Both these RFCs
are  INFORMATIONAL, not Best Common Practice.

If one needs to find out a Best Common Practice between IETF and SDO,
one would check RFC4053 Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements To
and From IETF.  That expects existence of one or several Liaison
persons.  If we don't have that then we don't act as Best Common Practice.

> The IETF does not have an official liaison relationship with the
> WiMAX forum.  They nonetheless sent a message about what they would
> like to see and some questions.  All this information has already
> been posted here, on the mailing list.

Can we reply to these statements?

> Without singling out any messages posted to the NETLMM mailing list 
> in recent days, it is important to recognize that we cannot treat 
> mailing list postings from individuals as representing the views of 
> any other SDO.  We must treat people as individual contributors to 
> the mailing list and take the discussions for what they are worth as 
> individual contributions.

I completely agree, thanks for posting this.  But 'SDO' is not a taboo 
subject, we can discuss about it, and we have guidelines about how to 
deal with SDO interactions, documented RFCs.

> Please do not continue posting on the thread about other SDOs - if
> you have other topics, please re-name the subject appropriately.

Vidya, could you please say yes or no can we as NETLMM WG members send
feedback to SDO?  If yes then how?

I will offer my feedback here, with respect to the letter NETLMM WG
Chairs received from WiMax Forum.  Do you Vidya think that I have to get 
consensus in this WG on this letter before sending it to WiMax Forum? 
Can you send this letter to WiMax Forum?  Please state a way to go.

Letter from WiMax SDO says:
> Date: Jan 26th, 2007 
 > From: WiMax Forum
 > To: Jari, Arkko, Mark Townsley
> Cc: Phil, Vidya, Henrik Levkowetz, Pete McCann. 
 > Subject:  Standardization of Proxy MIPv6 and Proxy MIPv4
 >
> [...] We prefer to adopt IETF standardized protocols as the basis for
> our work.  To facilitate this, we request the IETF to accelerate the
> completion of the proxy MIPv6 RFC and request the IETF to adopt and
> accelerate the completion of a proxy MIPv4 RFC. We would appreciate
> if these work items are completed by Q3 2007. References to the two
> drafts of interest are listed below: PMIPv4 draft: 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-02.txt
>  PMIPv6 draft: 
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01.txt

Thanks for the letter, this WG is very aware of the above drafts, 
because they have been posted in the IETF Internet Draft repository. 
The WG is also aware of the urgent needs.

1. Stages of a IETF document
In IETF terms, there are several stages of completion for a certain
document: individual proposal, WG item, LC in WG, LC in IETF, in IESG
(with its IESG stages), AUTH48 and finally RFC number (champagne).
Which of these levels of completion do you refer to when asking Q3 2007?
   For which draft of the two?  Because if you request RFC number in Q3
2007 I think it may not be feasible, because several reasons that I can
explain separately, if interest is.

2. Status of IETF documents once RFC
An RFC, once issued, follows a certain 'track': Standards Track, or
INFORMATIONAL, or EXPERIMENTAL, or Best Common Practice.  The decision
on which track to pursue a document is happening when the respective
draft becomes a WG item.  Do you have a preference for any of these
tracks?  It can be explained further about the status, if need is, and
its impact on the speed of standardization.

3. PMIPv6 Draft
When you made the suggestion of PMIPv4 and PMIPv6 drafts (listed above),
were you aware of the existence of another PMIPv6 draft?
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-02.txt
If yes, can you please explain why this draft does not make part of your 
suggestion?  Is there a technical issue with it?  Is it a timing aspect 
(draft was recently posted)?  Because at IETF there's consensus usually 
to have all candidate protocol options on the table before making 
selection, sometimes there are even RFCs written only for selection 
purposes.

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________