Re: [Seamoby] IP Paging ]Framework discussion

[Marcus Brunner <[e-mail]>]

Behcet,

I understand Marco if he is upset (you called his draft publically "a mess" 
(Message-ID: <[e-mail]>)

That you make privatly sent mails public seams not to be a the right 
behavior if you still want to collaborate (but it seams you want to go out 
of the game, is this right?)

Plus he wants to start working on the protocol TOGETHER with everybody NOW.

Marcus

--On Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:40 AM -0600 Behcet Sarikaya 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Marco,
>
>    I could not understand your email, you seem to be somewhat upset, you
> even forgot to include seamoby into your list :)    First I think that
> you should be ready to be critisized, more to any technical arguments to
> your work. This is way of life unfortunately, people tend to critisize.
> Your recollection and mine about our IETF corridor talks do not seem to
> match. It is also not so clear how much you are aware of IP Paging field
> of study, what happened in the recent past, etc. For your information I
> made a presentation in MIP WG of a joint draft with my Nokia colleagues
> at IETF 49 in San Diego presenting an extension to MIPv6 for IP Paging.
> This work was dubbed an extension to MIPv6 not paging related
> optimizations for MIPv6. This seems to indicate only part of a confused
> mind set.   My comments on your drafts are based on objective
> observations and are correct and are not negative.   Your statement that
> the first seamoby draft will have the MIPv6 related optimizations in the
> annex is a big statement which may refer to your own draft.
>
>   Maybe something I wrote somehow made you upset, sorry about that.
>
> Happy New Year to you too.
>
>
> Marco Liebsch wrote:
>
>  First: Happy new year.
>
> Furthermore:
>
> Behcet,
>
> as we talked in Salt Lake about several paging issues, you told me, that
> you did not read our concept proposal I-D, but you tried to 'convince me'
> that our proposal is MIP/HA based and specific. This is not true, as I
> tried to explain you in Salt Lake already. The concept is independent of
> the mobility platform, but explains how to integrate the paging concept
> into a MIPv6 platform 'as an example' and proposes some paging related
> optimization for MIPv6 as an option. The second draft is not a mess in my
> opinion, therefore, why should I 'admit' anything like this?  Therefore,
> please read the draft thoroughly before giving such a statement. For your
> info, the first seamoby draft on paging will have the MIPv6 related
> optimizations proposed in he Annex, as already written on the list.
>
> Regards,
>
> marco.
>
>
> Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
>
> James Kempf wrote:
>
>
>
>   You seem to ignore the LAHAP draft always, why? (I think
> the answer is implicit in your other mail, parts of it I am copying
>
>
>
> here)
>
> No evil intent, it was strictly a matter of oversight.
>
>
> Therefore the assessment process is moot, sorry for coming back to this
> conclusion again. I think that this will be more evident when the meeting
> slides are ever posted with the mnutes, I had specifically asked during
> the meeting if there are any slides on LAHAP draft and you said no.
>
>
> One of the uses of IP paging for seamless mobility is the ability
> to abstract across a variety of different L2 paging protocols.
> Suppose a device has five wireless interfaces, three of
> which define L2 paging protocols specific to their
> particular medium. In this case, confining the L2
> paging information to the AR would simplify
> management of paging within the network. L3
> paging areas could be used to abstract across
> various L2 paging protocols, in the same way
> that an IP subnet abstracts across a different
> L2 link. In this case, I think there is an advantage
> to having L3 paging areas even if there is
> already L2 support.
>
>                         jak
>
>
>
>
> You seem to refer to Yoshi"s mail on orthogonality and also assume that
> L2 paging areas always exist. Orthogonality or L2 paging area
> configuration regardless of IP subnet structure can only happen in 2G
> voice-based cellular networks where the mobile is searched with its link
> address, e.g. IMSI. In 2.5G and 3G cellular networks IP communication is
> of prime concern.  L2 paging areas regardless of IP subnet configuration
> when  the mobile has to be searched with its IP address seems a wrong
> approach to me, its only justification could be to reuse old paging areas
> already configured for 2G networks. Also I don't think IP Paging protocol
> could go into so much to link-related issues.    Secondly L2 paging areas
> exist only on cellular network links and not of a given to any link.In
> where it exists (GPRS, 3GPP),  would they be interested in  IETF's IP
> Paging protocol is a big question mark, IMHO.
>
>   Regarding renker draft, firstly renker-00 draft was based on MIPv6 and
> it was home agent based paging. Jim mentioned in one of his previous
> emails the disadvantageous of HA based paging. Now, renker-01 draft is a
> mess as Marco admits, and its architecture is based on lumping everything
> together, which means, the authors do not know what to do with each
> architectural entity, so lets combine them. I also agree with Yoshi on
> the marks given by the assessment team correctly marked it low.
>
>  Regards,
> --
> Behcet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Behcet Sarikaya
> Network Strategy Group, Mobile Networking Team
> Alcatel USA M/S 026
> 1000 Coit Road  PB7
> Plano, TX 75075 USA
> Email: [e-mail]
> Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
>
>



--------------------------------------
Dr. Marcus Brunner
Network Laboratories
NEC Europe Ltd.

E-Mail: [e-mail]
WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus



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