RE: [Mipshop] RE: Concerning mobility services transport PS

["Robert Hancock" <robert.hancock at roke.co.uk>]

Dear all,

I'm slightly confused by the direction of this discussion. We seem
to have
- some in favour of stripping out the .21 material and only keeping
the aspects specifically relevant to the IETF work
- some in favour of stripping out anything which isn't directly needed
for .21
- some in favour of sticking strictly to a high level problem statement
- some in favour of going into more detailed requirements and 
design space analysis

We already have individual documents that do these things; for example,
a high-level PS-only draft was presented in Vancouver. However, my 
recollection from the meeting (and also the minutes) was that for a
number of people, a "pure" PS draft was very difficult to absorb without
the architectural context, which includes at least the .21 discussions.
Also in Montreal the AR-info issues came up as another (not .21)
protocol user.

Although I'm not one of the authors, I'll happily take some of the
blame for the current document scope and structure. Actually, I still
think it is a reasonable way to satisfy the set of conflicting 
requirements. If you only want to see the minimal problem statement, 
ignore the appendices; if you only want to see the .21 stuff, ignore 
the appendices which are not about .21. It certainly reflects my 
understanding of what the authors were asked to do after the 
Montreal meeting ("Need a single PS at WG level; Chairs strongly 
suggest interested parties to work offline and produce common 
PS ..."). I guess we need some guidance on whether a common PS 
is expected to be the union or intersection of the various
strands of work.

cheers,

robert h.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Soohong Daniel Park [mailto:soohongp at gmail.com] 
> Sent: 19 September 2006 16:27
> To: Rahman, Akbar
> Cc: mipshop at ietf.org; James Kempf
> Subject: Re: [Mipshop] RE: Concerning mobility services transport PS
> 
> 
> Same concern here. While relooking at the MIPSHOP charter, it is
> targeting to 802.21 space only. So, I don't think the approach in this
> document as "not limited to IEEE 802.21" is acceptable...Please focuse
> on 21 relevant problems. Analyzing pros and cons in each transport
> layer suggested by Betcet seems also too much wide in the PS document,
> rather describing those in a separated document as analysis or
> something like that if necessary later. Now, let's focus on the
> problem space to accelarate on this stuff in IETF.
> 
> My 0.2 cents.
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshop at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 


_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop