Subject: [Seamoby] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-seamoby-ct-reqs-02.txt

From: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 07:59:24 -0800

All,

The above document addresses comments raised during the previous last call,
and requires another last call. Please send any comments to the WG mailing
list (or to the authors) by Jan 4th.

PatC

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 17:23:55 -0600

Dear All,
  According to the slides presented by WG cochair on Friday Dec. 14, 
2001 at IETF 52 (these slides have to be posted for public access, as 
other WGs do), the two drafts:
draft 1. draft-sarikaya-seamoby-mipv6hp-00.txt and
draft 2. draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt
were considered together because they were submitted by the same team and
since draft-sarikaya-seamoby-mipv6hp-00.txt
was based on hmipv6 both of them were eliminated, i.e. 
draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt was not at all considered, there were no 
slides on this draft..
  This raises several concerns on my side:
- the two drafts have only two authors in common, the two draft main 
authors are different and
more importantly the two drafts define two different paging protocols.
- draft 1 is an extension of Mobile IPv6. Its dependence on hmipv6 can 
easily be removed, as we intend to do it in the next version.
- draft 2 is completely based on the architecture defined in RFC 3154. 
Apart from many other aspects, it defines paging triggers.
- draft 2 was probably the only draft that generated some discussion on 
the maling list by people who have not submitted drafts, i.e., by 
external people .
- WG cochair Jim sent us private emails providing some useful feedback 
on the definition of an API for paging triggers. He even offered to 
collaborate on a joint draft. I have the emails and willing to 
distribute them on the mailing list if asked.

  Based on the above facts I hereby declare the paging protocol 
assessment to be moot.

Regards,

-- 
Behcet 

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:52:28 -0800

Bechet,

The Wireless Directorate is still discussing what to do about L2
triggers. Based on feedback from
the Directorate, I made a decision not to pursue discussing a joint
draft on paging and handover triggers
with the other authors of the handover trigger draft. There has been no
decision about how
to continue the L2 triggers work in the Wireless Directorate yet, but
many people have expressed
the opinion that a BOF at IETF 53 is the right approach. If that
approach appeals to the
Area Directors, then you will have the opportunity to present your work
there, as will we with the
handover triggers.

As for your HMIPv6-based paging work, again as I mentioned at the
meeting,
the proposal was dependent on a specific LMM solution for MIPv6. Given
that
the MIP group has yet to decide on LMM requirements, I am actually quite
suprised that your team even submitted it. I don't think there is any
way the
Seamoby group could possibly accept a protocol proposal based on
a protocol that has yet to even complete the requirements phase in
another
working group, to say nothing of the dependence on Mobile IPv6, which
is something the Seamoby working group has tried to avoid. The
HMIPv6-based
paging proposal not only didn't satisfy the requirements, but it set up
a dependence
that could ultimately hamper taking the Seamoby protocol to proposed
standard, if
the Mobile IP group rejected HMIPv6 in favor of another LMM protocol.

With regard to the paging assessment, if you look at
draft-ietf-seamoby-paging-protocol-assessment-00.txt, you will see that
there is a separate
column for rating draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt, and a separate set of
comments. So, even
though both drafts were done by the same assessor (which is what I meant
by them
being bundled), the assessments were written up separately. However,
since
draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt does not present a complete solution for
IP paging, it was not possible to consider it on its own as the solution
for the Seamoby
IP paging protocol. That's another and perhaps more compelling reason
why it was not
accepted as the basis for the Seamoby protocol. I should have made this
clearer at the meeting.

As you may know, working group drafts are the product of the working
group, not
the editor, so your work, along with good work from the other protocol
proposal
authors, will be invaluable in generating a superior result. Rather than
"declaring the
assessment moot", I suggest you talk to Marco about folding some of your
work
into the working group draft, if that seems appropriate.  If not, then
perhaps
the venue of an L2 trigger BOF would be the right place to continue
the work. We will certainly need a good interface between IP paging and
Layer 2
paging in the final Seamoby paging protocol.

                    jak

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:19:42 -0600

Jim,
  Are you going to post or not the slides you presented at SLC?

James Kempf wrote:

> IP paging,

Sorry I do not get this argument.
The assessment draft gave marks to all drafts and the marks
draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt received were not less than the marks others
received if not more.
It was your final personal decision presented in the drafts that made
comments on specifics of each draft. There, unfortunately were no slides,
i.e. no assessment of draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt and it said that the
decision on this draft was based on draft-sarikaya-seamoby-mipv6hp-00.txt.

This was the main point of my previous mail.
Good to remind.  Let's come to the point. Shall we?

--
Behcet

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:28:24 -0800

Behcet,

The slides will be part of the record of the meeting, including the
minutes. When that is complete, Pat or I
will announce to the mailing list where to find them. There is no point
in mailing out the bits to everyone.

            jak

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 14:51:13 -0600

Hi Jim,
  I am afraid your comments on paging triggers could be misunderstood as if
Seamoby WG chairs are against defining paging triggers.
  You know what Raj Patil (MIP WG) said in a recent mail:
>L2 triggers will not be discussed in the MIP WG meeting at SLC. While we
>do
>realize the importance of L2 triggers in enabling low-latency (MIPv4)
>and fast
>handoff (MIPv6), it is still undetermined as to in what WG or area of
>the IETF
>to do work related to this.
which I interpret as saying that MIP WG is supportive of  trigger work.
  If you are against I have a feeling that you have to make your case why
you are for defining triggers for low latency and fast handoff and not for
paging.

Regards,

--
Behcet

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:09:33 -0800

Behcet,

> you are for defining triggers for low latency and fast handoff and not
for

As Raj says for MIP and handover triggers, I believe the L2 triggers for
paging work has
some promise and is worthy of further investigation. However, we need
to define the right context within IETF for the work. Hopefully,
we will get this straightened out shortly.

            jak