Lwapp Mailing List: RE: Problem Statement Draft and Charter.

[Branislav Meandzija (bran]

Title: RE: [Lwapp] Problem Statement Draft and Charter.

I-----Original Message-----
From: Pat R. Calhoun [mailto:pcalhoun [at] airespace.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 9:53 AM
To: Branislav Meandzija; Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam); lwapp [at] frascone.com
Subject: RE: [Lwapp] Problem Statement Draft and Charter.

  The IETF could assist such efforts by standardizing 802.11 MIBs, PIBs, or LDAP schema. If this is not sufficient, then generic requirements should be formulated that are not well addressed by the current set of IETF protocols and should be addressed in the context of other security, management work, etc.

  <PRC> Inter-SDO standardization has never been very successful and is very difficult to organize.
  
  [bran] The AAA and mobility groups are working extremely well together with 3GPP, 3GPP2 and the IEEE.

  <PRC-2> I didn't say impossible, I said difficult. Further, we've already discussed why this belongs in the IETF numerous
          times both in face to face meetings as well as over the list. We have thumbs up from the IEEE leadership on this, and
          they have provided some very talented people to help with the interactions. So if your comment is that the IEEE and
          the IETF is incorrect, and you have specific reasons why this belongs in a specific SDO, then please speak up. So far
          you've been rather vague about where (any SDO other than IETF), and why (because).

  <PRC> BTW, 3GPP and 3GPP2 have their hands full with GSM and CDMA, respectively. WiFi is not an SDO and IEEE agrees this
        is an IETF problem.
 
[bran] I didn't suggest 3GPP or 3GPP2 but just named them as examples of SDOs which work well with the IETF. I woul disagree that 802.11 infrastructure is the IETF's problem but 

  Otherwise we can start similar efforts for  802.16, 802.20, etc.

  <PRC> We have already agreed to limit the scope to 802.11. If the resulting work is successful, and we are done, we can look at tackling other technologies.
  
  [bran]  That would be analogous to defining a new IP protocol specific to a particular layer 2, lets say 802.3.

  <PRC-2> There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to solve a very specific market need, and this is the direction that
          the (proposed) WG has taken, at the request of the IESG.

[bran] I  have no problem with solving a specific market need within this umbrella. But, let's do it please in an architecturally sound way where we don't end up with a soup of standards which nobody cares about. To avoid that, we would approach creation of new protocols more conservatively and make due with the existing set.  

Or, did the IESG also agree to create a new IETF management protocol specific to 802.11?

Branislav