January 2006 21-06-0497-00-0000
IEEE P802
Media Independent Handover Services
Teleconference Meeting Minutes of the IEEE P802.21 Working Group
IETF Requirements Ad Hoc
Ad Hoc Leader: Subir Das
Minutes taken by Yoshihiro Ohba
Date: Tuesday, January10th, 2006, 9:00AM-11:10AM EST
1.Opening Remarks by Subir Das
1.1.Roll Call and agenda bashing
1.2.Discuss document “21-06-0408-02-0000-IETFInvolvment.ppt” and “draft-IS_requierments-00.txt” posted to the reflector in order to create IETF requirements for 802.21 Information Service.
2.Discussions
2.1.Discussion on “21-06-0408-02-0000-IETFInvolvment.ppt”
[Subir] Stefano, please explain Option 3c.
[Stefano]Option 3c was created based on the discussion in the Dec 08, 2005 teleconference as to which option would be more successful in IETF. We have added another option for this purpose. In Option 3c, MIH header is partially defined by IEEE and partially defined in IETF. IETF and IEEE define theirown MIH IE header and data.Main difference from other options (1a and 3a) is the more collaborative effort.I do not expect IETF to modify what is defined by IEEE.Instead, IETF will add its own stuff to what is defined by IEEE.
[Ajoy] Why we need Option 3c while Option 1b creates similar thing?
[Stefano] In Option 3c, IETF has more roles on defining MIH header.
[Ajoy] How can we start defining MIH header then within IEEE?
[Stefano] IEEE first defines MIH header. IETF will add their fields to the MIH header.
[Subir] Could you explain the logical separation of functionality that what has been described by Kalyan ?
[Stefano] The difference is that MIH header as well as payload will be jointly developed by IEEE and IETF.
[Kalyan] Only difference should be between IETF IE and IEEE IE aredata types not header or payload.
[Srini] If common code space is used, then we don't need tohave two different formats. But that may not be the case.
[Ajay] Why would IETF choose a different format. If they are not complaint it will be difficult to coexist.
[Srini] IETF may decide to use a different format.
[Kalyan] Type spaces are already allocated. See the latest contribution on IE TLV.
[Subir]For IEEE code space and IETF code space, there has to be some correlation between them.
[Srini] Once the IE is defined, then there is no problem with parsingthe IEs.
[Kalyan] That’s the reason we talked about IETFadaptor.
[Ajay] So far there was nodisagreement for choosing a particular option.
[Vivek] Let's say IEEE implemented IEEE IEs. Do we really think thatIETF is going to define its own header and IEs and IEEE will change accordingly as and when it happens? Is it practical? For IEEEperspective, let's work on our own practical scenarios.
[Subir] I agree with Vivek. Let's try to work on what makes sense.First we can define 802.21 headers independently of IETF and then ask feedback fromIETF. Is that OK?
No objections
2.2.Discussion on “draft-IS_requierments-00.txt”
[Subir] The objective here is to discuss the outline of the draft to be submitted to the IETF and what we can get from IETF.
[Stefano] IETF members need to see the IEEE draft and that was clearly a requirement in last meeting..
[Subir] Before March meeting there should be a liaison between IEEE and IETF.
[Ajay] A liaison will be in place and I will discuss with Mipshop chairs and after that chairs could share the draft only individual basis.
[Stefano] We have to remember that the draft would be an individual draft not from IEEE 802.21 WG draft.
[Ajay] If the draft is written by 802.21 members, thenit may have a better reception by IETF.Definitely a liaison should be created.
[Stefano] Again, it cann’t be 802.21 group. It is always from an individual or a group of individuals.
[Subir] The draft can be edited by one person and a bunch of individual can participate and once it becomes a WG item in IETF, other folks may also join.
[Ajay] That’s fine.
[Subir] This draft is only for 802.21 IS.
[Stefano] Are you planning to submit a new draft? A similar draft was discussed in the last IETF and it may be better if we plan to submit an updated version.
[Subir]Submitting as a new revision of the existing draft should be fine, as long as the draft is based on the involvement of the .21 members.
[Eleanor] There is another draft on problem statement of MIH and overall requirements.
[Stefano] I suggest having two drafts. First one is for introductionof 802.21. The second one is specifically for IS.
[Subir] We should circulate the outline of the drafts and discuss them duringthe IEEE meeting next week.
[Subir] Any comment on the Introduction section?
[Kalyan] It should focus on IS. Description on other services can be described in another draft.
[Subir]Is there any Comment on Section 2?
[Stefano] This section is useful. If we can add motivation of thescenarios it would even better.
[Subir]Is there any Comment on Section 3?
None.
[Subir]Is there any comment on Section 4?
None.
[Subir] Next we discuss security considerations section. All Internet-Draftsneed Security considerations section.
[Stefano] Security considerations do not require solving the problems. At least needs to identify the security issues.
[Subir] I would like to ask Eleanor to explain the outline of the otherdraft.
[Eleanor] The draft describes 802.21 objectives as well as deployment options., etc.
[Ajay]: Eleanor, what is the rational for giving all of the options?
[Eleanor] We will not describe all options. Only one option agreed by .21 members will be reflected in the draft.
[Subir] Can you or your co-author present an outline of this draft in next Jan interim meeting?
[Eleanor] I am not attending the interim meeting.
[Stefano] Either I or Srini will present this.
[Subir] Thanks.
3.Action Items
3.1.Continue discussion in Hawaii face-to-face meeting and also within IS ad hoc group.
4.Attendees
(More may have attended. Please send updates to Chair)
Ajay Rajkumar
Ajoy Singh
Eleanor Hepworth
Fitzgerald
Kalyan Koora
Mathieu Peresse
Prasad Govindrajan
Reijo Soliman
Srinivas Sreemanthula
Stefan Berg
Stefano Faccin
Subir Das
Vivek Gupta
Yoshihiro Ohba
Minutes page 1