Re: [Seamoby] Moving forward with paging

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Dear All,
  My comments follow. If these changes are incorporated, I am OK with 
this draft going for the last call.
Comments on the assessment draft:
On page 2:
Of these, [6]
   and [7] were from the same team and were treated as one contribution
   for purposes of assessment.
Action: Drop this sentence, since 6 and 7 define different protocols and 
they were evaluated separately in 3.3 and 3.4.
Page 4
draft-renker-paging-ipv6-01.txt
       Unacceptable Requirements Match:
        4.4, 4.6, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21
Action: add 4.7 to the list.
Page 5
Requirement 4.7: Independence of Mobility Protocol
   
   The independence of mobility protocol is valid for "explicit" case
   only. The design specifies two separate protocols, one for Mobile IP
   and one without Mobile IP. 
Even implicit mode requires HA, i.e. Mobile IP, see the figure on page 
22 of draft-renker-paging-ipv6-01.txt.
Action: replace the text above with this: The design basically specifies 
one protocol for Mobile IP home agent based paging. 

Page 13
Draft-sarikaya was ruled out
   because it is based on a protocol that is currently under evaluation
   in another working group, setting up an unacceptable dependency
   between the Seamoby paging protocol design and the other working
   group's process.
Action: add the following to this. Moreover draft-sarikaya is not the 
only draft that has some dependency on HMIPv6. Draft-koodli also has 
included the mapping of their protocol to HMIPv6.

Page 13
While the assessment
   of draft-guri was positive, draft-guri is explicitly concerned with
   utilizing Layer 2 support for paging, and was therefore not
   sufficiently broad enough as a base for IP paging.
Action: Replace by: The assessment of draft-guri was positive.

Page 13 and 14.
Last 4 paragraphs starting with:
Of these, both draft-renker and draft-ohba provided adequate support
   for the first two, independence of mobility protocol and support for
   existing mobility protocols.
Until 5.0 Acknowledgements
Action: Drop completely.
The reasons are the following:
1.    Some comments on the "advantages:" of draft-renker may be taken to 
mean that: IETF is soliciting the draft authors to have a long reference 
list of the published literature including conference/journal  papers, 
otherwise you will be judged out not knowing the field
The fact is that the text and the related references of draft-renker 
fail to identify clearly which is Layer 2 related (there is a very rich 
literature on the paging in cellular networks which is called Layer 2 
paging) and which is Layer 3 related and some key references on Layer 3 
paging are missing.

Action. Add the following text.
As the response to the survey  sent out to the mailing list indicated, 
nobody is doing product in this area in the near future, so we have some 
time to get this right.

The Working Group wants a design that will last, like Internet routing
has, and fit properly into the Internet architecture,
since paging will be a key component of the future
all-IP wireless networks.  This is naturally going to require
some time.

Page 15
The acknowledgements.

This is the first time I see the authors acknowledging themselves. It is 
unheard of.
Action. Drop section 5.0.

Pat R. Calhoun wrote:

>  
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thanks for the feedback. However, what would be much more useful is
> to provide comments on the assessment draft. If you believe that the
> technical assessment of a particular draft is incorrect, please make
> that statement. Perhaps the new text could justify the selection of
> another draft as the starting point.
>  
> PatC
>
Regards,

-- 
Behcet