Re: Requirements

[James Kempf <James.Kempf@Sun.COM>]

Grenville,

Let me first clarify one point....

At this point, there is no proposed WG and the intent of the BOF is
not to start a WG. While it is possible that a WG
might come out of the BOF, it is more likely that the BOF will
result in an updating of the requirements in the draft. See the recently
published draft from the Next Steps in Signalling (NSIS) BOF,
draft-bradner-nsis-bof-00.txt, as an example.

Now, with respect to the issue of "is it just a link layer"...

With respect to the wireless Internet, I agree that it is a lot more
than simply a link layer. What I was trying to make clear is that
this has traditionally been the argument at IETF for not having
specific WGs to deal with wireless. The problem with this argument
is that it is becoming more and more clear (at least to me) that
there are problems in the wireless/mobility problem space which
go beyond the typical wired link layer. So even if it is just
a link layer, it is still a qualitatively different kind of link
layer. And, in addition, there are the problems that mobility brings.

A way to see this is to ask "what is the difference between a 
fixed wireless and mobile wireless?" There are differences, but
when you mix in mobility, then things get more complicated.

Hope this doesn't sound too confusing...

		jak

>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:55:58 -0700
>From: grenville armitage <gja@ureach.com>
>To: tim clifford <tjc@lacunanet.net>
>CC: more@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Requirements
>
>
>I'm not sure I follow your phrase "...talking about more than
>a link layer.."  Are you saying the proposed MORE WG is about
>more than a link layer, or that wireless Internet is about more
>than a link layer? The latter is certainly true, but if you mean
>the former then I'm unclear what MORE will contribute
>over and above existing efforts to develop IP-level mobility
>solutions in the IETF.
>
>cheers,
>gja
>
>tim clifford wrote:
>> 
>> which would seem to imply that we need to try to convince people at the ietf
>> (i think its a misnomer to say "convince the ietf") that we're talking about
>> more than a link layer, maybe the right term is mobility, or roaming
>> services, or disadvantaged user devices, or large populations of always on
>> subscribers  ;-)
>> 
>> tc
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-more@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-more@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf
>> > Of James Kempf
>> > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:47 AM
>> > To: more@ops.ietf.org; jgw@cisco.com
>> > Subject: Re: Requirements
>> >
>> >
>> > John,
>> >
>> > There is no such catalog. In general, IETF has been resistent to
>> > making wireless a special category. It is viewed as just another link
>> > layer.
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Grenville Armitage                http://members.home.net/garmitage/
>