Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS

Jiri Kuthan <jiri@iptel.org> Thu, 13 February 2014 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jiri@iptel.org>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214EF1A0382 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:00:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FwKsEhKeRjiZ for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:00:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.iptel.org (mail.iptel.org [212.79.111.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47951A01A8 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:00:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Jiris-MacBook-Pro.local (owli.iptel.org [212.79.111.153]) by mail.iptel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED937371D9F; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:00:07 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52FD0827.3050105@iptel.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:00:07 +0100
From: Jiri Kuthan <jiri@iptel.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ivo Sedlacek <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, Harvind Samra <harvind@rangenetworks.com>
References: <040E1A40-BC55-4CFC-834A-FC958DEFDE25@rangenetworks.com> <948FB37B-F2D4-4462-8B29-D03FDF65215F@rangenetworks.com> <93B4EA30-0734-439E-A129-B3B91B077720@rangenetworks.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B12F6C3@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <2B05935E-EB65-4B36-ABD3-09DE9921F8A7@westhawk.co.uk> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B12F7CE@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CACy T-3mAJX4uPDcXDz7j6xOAA+OSDoRguQ51EvZk9=LTG8KzJQ@mail.gmail.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B12FA06@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <DE4C1B56-0D67-4210-9FFA-EC0BC866E081@westhawk.co.uk> <201402121601.s1CG1q0W4835781@shell01.TheWorld.com> <39B5E4D390E9BD4890E2B3107900610112662068@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <017BBEA0-CDBE-453D-9E98-77F470BC9181@rangenetworks.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B1319E6@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <52FCF23D.7070608@iptel.org> <39B5E4D390E9BD4890E2B3107900610112662679@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <39B5E4D390E9BD4890E2B3107900610112662679@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/V4M4bM_71-4i9KU8dDWpj9QgE6Y
Cc: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:00:12 -0000

On 2/13/14 5:57 PM, Ivo Sedlacek wrote:
> The question should be:
>
> 	Should IETF work on a new solution for a market where a solution exists and the existing solution is equal or superior to the newly proposed one?

A quick opinion of mine: I don't think the IETF should bother about this much.

There is a long record of technologies developed in the IETF that either
didn't have a business plan attached with them, or  did crash someone
else's business plan, or competed with other established or not-established
technologies  or even among each other. I think that's a good thing even
if some of the technologies turn not to be adopted later.


> Argument for statement "the existing solution is equal or superior to the newly proposed one" is:
> - the existing 3GPP solution is already developed, tested, mass produced and mass deployed and thus benefits from economies of scale.
> - no existing 3GPP requirement was identified as unnecessary for the new solution so complexity of the existing solution and new solution is the same.

I'm afraid that business arguments are forward-looking, which in plain language
doesn't mean novel or futuristic but just uncertain and subjective. I suspect that
if we used such to restrict proposals when debating what to do in the IETF, we
would be on analog phones today :)

-jiri




>
> If you believe that statement "the existing solution is equal or superior to the newly proposed one" is incorrect, please prove it.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Ivo Sedlacek
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org]
> Sent: 13. února 2014 17:27
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Harvind Samra; Ivo Sedlacek
> Cc: dispatch@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS
>
> On 2/13/14 3:34 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>> Jumping in here, they are relevant in as much as there is no point in IETF working on this if there is no known market for it.
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> are you suggesting that IETF processes shall only allow work on technologies for which there is a known market?
>
> I'm glad this was not the case in the past, otherwise I would not be able to send a single email. At least I don't have memory of IETF business case criteria for the SNMP protocol. If that shall change in the future, I would like to know what is the specific IETF criteria for market existence. Can you elaborate what these are supposed to be?
>
> -jiri
>
> p.s. one more question here: I understand your point that I'm eligible to read emails to this WG mailing list that carry confidentiality notice on the grounds of group memership. What I don't understand is whether I'm also permitted (in departure from the notice) to forward such an email to some other email address than that of the working group.
>
>
>> Usually those type of projects are published only on April 1st.
>> So all Ivo is asking is for you to justify that it is worth other people working on this as well as yourselves.
>> Perhaps if you identified the spectrum you believe is available for use in the the countries identified, that would be useful.
>> regards
>> Keith Drage
>