[16ng] Charter discussion - IP deployment over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks

[Soohong Daniel Park <[e-mail]>]

I would call for comments on the "16ng deliverable as IP deployment
over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks". It aims to guage 16ng consensus
whether we might take this item or not (leave it as v6ops task). 
I heard the relavant draft [2] below was officially accepted as v6ops
WG item at Dallas. That is why I try to clarify this item at this time.


[1] 16ng deliverable (none of draft)
-  Produce "IP deployment over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks" to illustrate the IP
deployment scenarios and considerations over IEEE 802.16(e) networks based on
the WiMAX and WiBro. [Informational RFC]

[2] v6ops individual submission regarding 802.16 deployment scenario
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-shin-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-00.txt


To me, both are for the same goal. But [2] just mention IPv6, not IPv4 
([1] will figure out both IPv4 and IPv6). Further, 16ng does not have a
chance to go through [2] as much as we satisfy. [2] seems a bit general 
document as one of v6ops broadband deployment (WLAN, PLC, Cable, 
and WMAN). Also, v6ops broadband deployment draft is under IESG
evaluation after WGLC. So, [2] will may be ready to the WGLC quickly 
as far as I am concern. 


CALL FOR COMMENTS:

- Working on 16ng deliverable regardless of [2] ?
- Sending 16ng comments on [2], then published by v6ops ?
(In that case, we should consider how to deal with IPv4)
- Considering [2] as a candidate of 16ng deployment deliverable ?


Any comments are highly welcome. 

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
From [e-mail] Wed Apr 12 12:20:45 2006
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.202])
	by eeca16.sogang.ac.kr (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k3C3KiIB005530
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:20:45 +0900
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i28so1301802nzi
        for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
	s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=MOdl6Pry/7KQFM5zb0eg0mDIKP+qWStChUDBiq/Pe+GSKRuVacQgHyCg3m6mZIKpf94RSl6Cj8EVxQbC6CSgo4WjVFsJLUaIPP48izCbxT6ZoYjV5xRSVgGuMXBmrgHu+lEa1CnB6wDc8OXQiQLzA2/7MVNykfffZ7sadgikWiY=
Received: by 10.36.227.54 with SMTP id z54mr81393nzg;
        Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?129.254.112.125? ( [129.254.112.125])
        by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 15sm532379nzo.2006.04.11.19.34.27;
        Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:34:21 +0900
From: Myung-Ki Shin <[e-mail]>
Organization: ETRI
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Soohong Daniel Park <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [16ng] Charter discussion - IP deployment over IEEE 802.16(e)
 Networks
References: <[e-mail]>
	<00c501c65dcc$217fc110$6dc6dba8@daniellaptop>
In-Reply-To: <00c501c65dcc$217fc110$6dc6dba8@daniellaptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: [e-mail]
cc: [e-mail]
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: [e-mail]
List-Id: IPv6 over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks <16ng.eeca16.sogang.ac.kr>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://eeca16.sogang.ac.kr/mailman/listinfo/16ng>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://eeca16.sogang.ac.kr/pipermail/16ng>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://eeca16.sogang.ac.kr/mailman/listinfo/16ng>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 03:20:46 -0000

Hi, Daniel,  (I'm ccing [e-mail])

Actually, I don't think that the goal of two drafts are the same.

V6ops draft [2] covers the issues on IPv6 deployment and
integration methods and scenarios in 802.16 broadband access
networks in coexistence with deployed IPv4 services.
It extends works of <draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-01.txt>.
This is also one of goals and scope of v6ops WG.
In this draft, authors do not try to define any new network models or 
protocols.

But, in my view, 16ng should focus on network and IP link models
(e.g, WiMAX and WiBro), not IPv6 deployment and scenarios, etc.

So, I think the 16ng deliverable [1] should be published as a separate
document, focusing on network and IP link models (IPv4 and IPv6, both).

Any thoughts ?

Thanks,
Myung-Ki,

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Myung-Ki Shin, Ph.D.| [e-mail]
ETRI/PEC            | 161 Gajeong-dong Yuseong-gu
Tel:[phone] | Daejeon, 305-350 Korea


Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
> I would call for comments on the "16ng deliverable as IP deployment
> over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks". It aims to guage 16ng consensus
> whether we might take this item or not (leave it as v6ops task). 
> I heard the relavant draft [2] below was officially accepted as v6ops
> WG item at Dallas. That is why I try to clarify this item at this time.
> 
> 
> [1] 16ng deliverable (none of draft)
> -  Produce "IP deployment over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks" to illustrate the IP
> deployment scenarios and considerations over IEEE 802.16(e) networks based on
> the WiMAX and WiBro. [Informational RFC]
> 
> [2] v6ops individual submission regarding 802.16 deployment scenario
> http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-shin-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-00.txt
> 
> 
> To me, both are for the same goal. But [2] just mention IPv6, not IPv4 
> ([1] will figure out both IPv4 and IPv6). Further, 16ng does not have a
> chance to go through [2] as much as we satisfy. [2] seems a bit general 
> document as one of v6ops broadband deployment (WLAN, PLC, Cable, 
> and WMAN). Also, v6ops broadband deployment draft is under IESG
> evaluation after WGLC. So, [2] will may be ready to the WGLC quickly 
> as far as I am concern. 
> 
> 
> CALL FOR COMMENTS:
> 
> - Working on 16ng deliverable regardless of [2] ?
> - Sending 16ng comments on [2], then published by v6ops ?
> (In that case, we should consider how to deal with IPv4)
> - Considering [2] as a candidate of 16ng deployment deliverable ?
> 
> 
> Any comments are highly welcome. 
> 
> Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> _______________________________________________
> 16ng mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://eeca16.sogang.ac.kr/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>