Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Assessment Presentation at SLC

["James Kempf" <[e-mail]>]

Bechet,

The Wireless Directorate is still discussing what to do about L2
triggers. Based on feedback from
the Directorate, I made a decision not to pursue discussing a joint
draft on paging and handover triggers
with the other authors of the handover trigger draft. There has been no
decision about how
to continue the L2 triggers work in the Wireless Directorate yet, but
many people have expressed
the opinion that a BOF at IETF 53 is the right approach. If that
approach appeals to the
Area Directors, then you will have the opportunity to present your work
there, as will we with the
handover triggers.

As for your HMIPv6-based paging work, again as I mentioned at the
meeting,
the proposal was dependent on a specific LMM solution for MIPv6. Given
that
the MIP group has yet to decide on LMM requirements, I am actually quite
suprised that your team even submitted it. I don't think there is any
way the
Seamoby group could possibly accept a protocol proposal based on
a protocol that has yet to even complete the requirements phase in
another
working group, to say nothing of the dependence on Mobile IPv6, which
is something the Seamoby working group has tried to avoid. The
HMIPv6-based
paging proposal not only didn't satisfy the requirements, but it set up
a dependence
that could ultimately hamper taking the Seamoby protocol to proposed
standard, if
the Mobile IP group rejected HMIPv6 in favor of another LMM protocol.

With regard to the paging assessment, if you look at
draft-ietf-seamoby-paging-protocol-assessment-00.txt, you will see that
there is a separate
column for rating draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt, and a separate set of
comments. So, even
though both drafts were done by the same assessor (which is what I meant
by them
being bundled), the assessments were written up separately. However,
since
draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt does not present a complete solution for
IP paging, it was not possible to consider it on its own as the solution
for the Seamoby
IP paging protocol. That's another and perhaps more compelling reason
why it was not
accepted as the basis for the Seamoby protocol. I should have made this
clearer at the meeting.

As you may know, working group drafts are the product of the working
group, not
the editor, so your work, along with good work from the other protocol
proposal
authors, will be invaluable in generating a superior result. Rather than
"declaring the
assessment moot", I suggest you talk to Marco about folding some of your
work
into the working group draft, if that seems appropriate.  If not, then
perhaps
the venue of an L2 trigger BOF would be the right place to continue
the work. We will certainly need a good interface between IP paging and
Layer 2
paging in the final Seamoby paging protocol.

                    jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Behcet Sarikaya" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Assessment Presentation at SLC


> Dear All,
>   According to the slides presented by WG cochair on Friday Dec. 14,
> 2001 at IETF 52 (these slides have to be posted for public access, as
> other WGs do), the two drafts:
> draft 1. draft-sarikaya-seamoby-mipv6hp-00.txt and
> draft 2. draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt
> were considered together because they were submitted by the same team
and
> since draft-sarikaya-seamoby-mipv6hp-00.txt
> was based on hmipv6 both of them were eliminated, i.e.
> draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt was not at all considered, there were
no
> slides on this draft..
>   This raises several concerns on my side:
> - the two drafts have only two authors in common, the two draft main
> authors are different and
> more importantly the two drafts define two different paging protocols.
> - draft 1 is an extension of Mobile IPv6. Its dependence on hmipv6 can
> easily be removed, as we intend to do it in the next version.
> - draft 2 is completely based on the architecture defined in RFC 3154.
> Apart from many other aspects, it defines paging triggers.
> - draft 2 was probably the only draft that generated some discussion
on
> the maling list by people who have not submitted drafts, i.e., by
> external people .
> - WG cochair Jim sent us private emails providing some useful feedback
> on the definition of an API for paging triggers. He even offered to
> collaborate on a joint draft. I have the emails and willing to
> distribute them on the mailing list if asked.
>
>   Based on the above facts I hereby declare the paging protocol
> assessment to be moot.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Behcet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>


_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby