Re: new charter

Please accept my agreement to the sentiment that it's probably too early
to put something in the mipshop WG Charter about 802.21.  Once there's
an implementation of 802.21 then it can be known what its issues with IP
are, so a WG could work on it.  Also public availability of 802.21
documents would be beneficial for IETF-at-large (not only mipshop)
people to review.

It is probably true that a certain number of people have access to both
the 802.21 and the mipshop documents.  It is however absolutely certain
that the decision to integrate 802.21 work items in a Charter and
subsequently produce an RFC is not under the exclusive will of the
people working on both groups.  Think about who in the IESG is able to
review an 802.21-based I-D without access to 802.21 documents.  Who is
going to shepherd it anyways?

Let me exemplify. 802.21 topics seem to touch on at least two different
IETF groups' interests.  mipshop may be interested in fho aspects while
mip6/nemo with its miptrans DT (doing MIP6 handovers between wifi and
cdma/gprs) may be interested in the 3gpp-to-802.11 handovers.  So, it is
relevant to at least ask the mip6 WG too about where would the 802.21
topics fit better.

I think adding 802.21 work items in a mipshop Charter could benefit from
additional going through BoF-like questioning.

Alex

stefano.faccin <at> nokia.com wrote:
> Ajoy, I do believe that based on discussion at the last MIPSHOP and 
> in 802.21 there is a clear indication that 802.21 will need some work
>  to be done in IETF. I agree the details have not been decided 100% 
> yet, however the charter as it is being proposed is flexible enough 
> to allow for different requirements coming from 802.21 members.
> 
> Stefano
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: ext Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 
>> [mailto:ASINGH1 <at> motorola.com] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:01
>>  To: gabriel montenegro; mipshop <at> ietf.org; Faccin Stefano 
>> (Nokia-NRC/Dallas) Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Gabriel,
>> 
>> IEEE 802.21 is still defining requirements for Information Service.
>>  So, I am not sure if it is clear yet what is needed from IETF? So,
>>  do you want charter something based on assumption that 802.21 will
>>  require something from IETF or wait till 802.21 requirement 
>> analysis is complete and agreed upon.
>> 
>> Regards, Ajoy
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: mipshop-bounces <at> ietf.org 
>> [mailto:mipshop-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of gabriel montenegro 
>> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 2:11 AM To: mipshop <at> ietf.org; 
>> stefano.faccin <at> nokia.com Subject: [Mipshop] new charter
>> 
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> You can find the proposed new charter here:
>> 
>> http://www.geocities.com/gabriel_montenegro_2000/mipshop-charter.htm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 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