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
[Mani,
Mahalingam (Mahalingam)] 802.11 infrastructure is a new interesting
terminology. CAPWAP is attempting defining solution for the 802.11 linkage to
IP infrastructure.
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?
[Mani,
Mahalingam (Mahalingam)] IESG has suggested, so far, to focus on articulating
the problem and architecture. It is far from taking a position on protocol
choice this early.
That will be putting
the cart before the horse – although it is an effective way to initiate
discussions on the problem.
Branislav
[Mani,
Mahalingam (Mahalingam)] -mani
avaya.com)