tim clifford wrote:
these are good categories, however I might suggest a broader view, that's a bit less presumptive about whether work is needed or solutions exist. we're just getting our arms around the requirements and will not really know how this stuff will need to work until there's some more real world experience.so an alternative might be to match the requirements up against the IETF working groups. it would offer an easier way for interested ietf groups to address the needs and would offer more functional view of the needs.tim-----Original Message-----Is someone going to break down the requirements into the categories that Dave suggested? I think the four categories are a good way to partition the presentation. Regards John
From: owner-more@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-more@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of John G. Waclawsky
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 1:45 PM
To: David Lindert
Cc: more@psg.com
Subject: Re: BOF Speakers Needed
David Lindert wrote:
Dana,Read your comments and I think you hit a lot of very good points.
I think I could break down your comments into four categories.
* those that there already exists capable IETF protocols (example: use of Mobile IP, SIP and HTTP to support mobility management)
* those that there are IETF protocols that need work in order to support wireless but appear to be going in the right direction (examples: caching registration, or the work on QoS for wireless, or maintaining context during hand-offs)
* those where the requirements are not clear, and where a question exists as to why a certain IETF protocol would or would not provide a viable solution to the underlying problem. (examples: why is layer 3 paging needed when layer 2 does the job, or why can't a gateway that converts IS-41/GSM Map to radius not work, or why does the terminal need authentication if the user is already authenticated).
* those where the requirements are not clear at all. (example: what is a session, or several cases where its not clear how the legacy telephone supports a feature, and should we care if it is only a legacy telephone requirement).
I think areas that might be raised as issues in the BoF would be those in the second and third, which raise questions that need comment, discussions that might lead to creating a working group to address. Of course the first category might generate some comment from operators and the traditional vendors.
Thanks,
Dave...