RE: What is the purpose of the discussion? Answer

[paul.reynolds@orange.co.uk]

Hi Chris, amongst other things you (I) said:

>>The perceived problem is that the IETF needs to tackle, that isn't already
>>within  scope for an existing WGs, is to have protocol development more
focused
>>upon wireless requirements...
>draft-reynolds-mobile-isp-requirements-00 describes a system called a "wireless
internet framework" that presumably >offers (reproduces?) the functionality of a
digital cellular network, using internet technologies.

The ID does not intend to describe a framework or architecture it is intended
only to give requirements that can be used in the development of such a
framework. Indeed, it is the expectation that these requirements will be used to
guide  the development of individual IETF protocols such that with their
eventual reuse, in any future framework/architecture/system that is developed,
the protocols will come with intrinsic capabilities that meet the requirements
of wireless ISPs.

>The text of draft-reynolds-mobile-isp-requirements-00 presents a set "Wireless
Internet Framework" system requirements >("needs to..."). I believe the draft
succeeds at describing key attributes of a system with surface behaviour like
that of a >digital cellular network, but with IP internals. I also believe that
many of the requirements listed in the draft are not at all >wireless specific.

Fair point, these requirements are not necessary "radio" specific but rather
wireless-operator specific. It is true that many of these requirements could be
re-used in a fixed ISP offering. However, these requirements represent a full
set that a mobile ISP needs to satisfy if it is to be able to offer a solution
supporting terminal and personal mobility that is entirely based upon IP .

> - Requirements related to creating a "walled garden" of services

I hope this is not the case, if this interpretation results from one or a number
of requirements in the ID then this needs to be addressed.

> - Requirements related to security, privacy, fraud prevention, and lawful
intercept

There should be no regulatory requirements (e.g. legal intercept) within the ID.
These were specifically excluded as these were not seen as relevant to the IETF
as they are country specific.

>As a person who's been in the wireless data industry for nearly 20 years, I see
genuine system-specific requirements in >many of these categories, but I don't
see any of them requiring a wireless-specific change in the overall
architectural >philosophy of the internet. My guess is that many of these
requirements can be satisfied 90% by solving the related >problem for the
internet at large; this is the problem set I think the IETF should address. The
set of truly wireless-specific >technical issues is rather small.

As above, you are correct I would like to differentiate between the radio (i.e.
ether) and true mobility afforded by wireless access (the system). Should the
requirements be satisfied by solving the problems for the internet at large so
much the better.

>We might go a long way toward addressing the genuine concerns of the wireless
industry, if the IETF and MWIF were to >focus on defining a "memo of
understanding" on which parts of the problem are appropriate IETF issues and
which belong >in MWIF. The objective of the MoU would not be to carve up turf,
but rather, to set expectations, avoid misunderstandings, >and speed progress
toward solutions.

I disagree. I think its important to differentiate between SDOs which are
charged with developing architectures to address specific problems (e.g. the
3GPPs which are developing architecture solutions for the evolution of 2nd
generation mobile networks) and IETF which is system agnostic. I believe that
the individual IETF protocols need to be developed with intrinsic awareness of
wireless requirements such that their eventual re-use makes them more
acceptable.

Paul Reynolds



*******************************************************************************
Important. This E-mail is intended for the above named person and may be
confidential and/or legally privileged. If this has come to you in error you
must take no action based on it, nor must you copy or show it to anyone; please
inform the sender immediately.
*******************************************************************************