Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com> Fri, 04 November 2011 23:05 UTC
Return-Path: <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B051F0C35 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cVL13yB3MTNa for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net (smtp.netregistry.net [202.124.241.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B5D1F0C3B for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [60.242.128.199] (helo=[192.168.0.2]) by smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net protocol: esmtpa (Exim 4.69 #1 (Debian)) id 1RMSon-0003pC-SY; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 10:05:03 +1100
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 10:04:49 +1100
From: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
Message-ID: <CADABA55.1D379%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
In-Reply-To: <350CD199-C70E-491B-B81D-AFE1D3F95C05@nokia.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-User: hesham@elevatemobile.com
Cc: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com, jari.arkko@piuha.net, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 23:05:42 -0000
> > > >On Nov 3, 2011, at 7:43 PM, ext Hesham Soliman wrote: > >> Hi Charlie, >> >> I agree completely with you on the problems with the current interfaces >>in >> LTE, and in 3G before that. >> I don't know what the best way to go about it would be. I say this >>because >> many people on this list are aware of what's happening in LTE and >> presumably have similar opinions about the complexity of their >>solutions, >> but it's still there. >> > >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. Complexity has its own >benefits.. Its just a matter of who the beneficiaries are :) >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. => Right, I think OPEX is the key issue here. The CAPEX argument is subjective and speculative but OPEX differences are a bit easier to show. Hesham > > >-Raj > > >> Hesham >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> >> Organization: Wichorus Inc. >> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:49:21 -0700 >> To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> >> Cc: <jouni.korhonen@nsn.com>, <mext@ietf.org> >> 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 >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Jari Arkko
- [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Jari Arkko
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hui Deng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hui Deng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Jari Arkko
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Jari Arkko
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Thierry Ernst
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Pete McCann
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group liu dapeng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Pete McCann
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item (was: the futu… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Thierry Ernst
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item karagian
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hidetoshi Yokota
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hidetoshi Yokota
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group liu dapeng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group liu dapeng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group h chan