Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group

["Charles E. Perkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Basavaraj,

Comments inline:

On 11/4/2011 9:05 AM, [e-mail] wrote:

> Unless you can make a clear and definitive case that the current LTE
> solution does not work or scale or inefficient in terms of performance
> or otherwise, it is difficult to bring about change.

Even with a clear case, it will be difficult to bring
about change.

>                                                        Complexity has
> its own benefits.. Its just a matter of who the beneficiaries are

Why don't we start from designing for the beneficiaries to be
the end users?  Every strategy has beneficiaries, but yours is
in no way a useful criterion for design.  Elminating electronic
communications and commerce would have very many beneficiaries,
as just one example.  Enabling high-speed smooth handovers
between heterogeneous radio technologies would benefit some
people more than others.  I'll be very surprised if [mext]
explicitly aims to protect complexity on the basis of your
argument.

> Hence claiming complexity as the reason to consider alternatives is
> an uphill task. If this complexity becomes an issue in terms of interop,
> CAPEX/OPEX costs etc. that may trigger a revisit to the architecture.

What about the points I already cited:

> Taking a look at S101 and S103, we can immediately
> recognize that they are drastically more complicated,
> restrictive, and operationally more expensive than
> Mobile IP.  Taking a look at S102, we immediately see
> that 3GPP mobility management threatens to be different
> for each class of application, with an unnecessary
> per-application proliferation of servers, protocol,
> permissions, traffic controls, configuration, and so on.
> Taking a look at recent efforts towards WiFi offload,
> we see the same trend of complication and software
> hacks that could be avoided with proper IETF
> approaches.

... and ...

>    ..........    if we don't take action, we are
> choosing a future that is ever more complicated,
> non-extendible, non-flexible, radio technology
> specific, application specific, and bug-ridden.
> In short, everything we don't want the Internet
> to be.


Do you disagree with _any_ of my claims above?

Regards,
Charlie P.




>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Charles E. Perkins"<[e-mail]>
>> Organization: Wichorus Inc.
>> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:49:21 -0700
>> To: Jari Arkko<[e-mail]>
>> Cc:<[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
>>
>>> Hello folks,
>>>
>>> For several years now, I have been studying 4G wireless
>>> network architecture and wondering why there is such a
>>> disconnect between, say, LTE mobility management and
>>> IETF mobility management.  Mobile IP has a secondary
>>> role, to say the least.  IETF approaches may be seen to
>>> have several inadequacies, and 3GPP approaches also show
>>> some major problems.  I think that it is important for
>>> the IETF to devote some serious effort towards bringing
>>> these two worlds together, because current directions
>>> are leading towards an impossibly baroque, wasteful,
>>> nearly impenetrable mess of complication.  The effects
>>> overall is loss of performance and opportunity.
>>>
>>> Taking a look at S101 and S103, we can immediately
>>> recognize that they are drastically more complicated,
>>> restrictive, and operationally more expensive than
>>> Mobile IP.  Taking a look at S102, we immediately see
>>> that 3GPP mobility management threatens to be different
>>> for each class of application, with an unnecessary
>>> per-application proliferation of servers, protocol,
>>> permissions, traffic controls, configuration, and so on.
>>> Taking a look at recent efforts towards WiFi offload,
>>> we see the same trend of complication and software
>>> hacks that could be avoided with proper IETF
>>> approaches.
>>>
>>> On the IETF side, we should specify:
>>> - Integrated authentication for access control
>>>   as well as IP address continuity
>>> - Location-assisted handovers (think MIIS / ANDSF)
>>> - Modular/alternative security
>>> - Signaling on control plane, user traffic on
>>>   data plane
>>> - Alternative tunneling (GTP is simply not going
>>>   to die a quick death, to say the least)
>>> - geez, the list does go on, but no one reads
>>>   long lists ...
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I don't know if we already have 3GPP liaison, but
>>> if we do the communication channels don't seem to
>>> have had very much effect within the [mext] work
>>> lately.
>>>
>>> My fear is that if we don't take action, we are
>>> choosing a future that is ever more complicated,
>>> non-extendible, non-flexible, radio technology
>>> specific, application specific, and bug-ridden.
>>> In short, everything we don't want the Internet
>>> to be.  And, I am sure no one here doubts that
>>> the Internet of the future is all high-speed
>>> wireless.  Where is the IETF going to be?
>>>
>>> If the [mext] working group is shut down, there
>>> is no natural place for this work to happen.
>>> Therefore, I hope that [mext] would NOT shut
>>> down, and instead recharter to tackle these
>>> urgent problems.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Charlie P.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/28/2011 5:08 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> We are making some changes to the working group. While we have
>>>> successfully published a large number of specifications in recent years,
>>>> recently it has been difficult to make progress in the group. The chairs
>>>> and ADs have looked at the situation and we believe we need a new focus
>>>> and a bit of new organization as well. We are terminating the working
>>>> group and moving the one remaining active work item to a new working
>>>> group, the "DMM" working group. Here's what is going to happen:
>>>>
>>>> o Jouni Korhonen and Julien Laganier will become the chairs of the
>>>> group.
>>>>
>>>> o The group will meet in Taipei (there is a MEXT slot in the agenda).
>>>>
>>>> o The charter of the group will be changed to focus only on the
>>>> distributed mobility effort. We should discuss the details of this
>>>> charter change both on the list and in the meeting. The meeting agenda
>>>> should reserve some time both for technical discussions as well as the
>>>> charter discussion.
>>>>
>>>> o Once the discussion on the list and in the meeting has finished, we
>>>> will rename the group to "DMM" and put the new charter in effect.
>>>>
>>>> o If there are any other specifications that people would like to
>>>> publish beyond the distributed mobility work, we can offer to AD sponsor
>>>> them to RFCs outside the new working group. If there is some significant
>>>> new activity, we can create new working groups for that.
>>>>
>>>> Comments and feedback and/or alternate suggestions on this plan are
>>>> welcome.
>>>>
>>>> We would like to thank Marcelo for your many years of service in MEXT.
>>>> We could not have completed all the work we did without your energy and
>>>> push for high quality results. We would also like to thank Jouni for
>>>> taking on this new challenge, and Julien for continuing the work in this
>>>> space.
>>>>
>>>> Jari and Ralph
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> MEXT mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MEXT mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>
>