RE: BOF Speakers Needed

[Burke Chris-CCB007 <Chris.Burke@motorola.com>]

Since a BOF typically ends either with recognition of lack of critical mass, or with evaluation of a strawman WG charter, I think it a very good idea to map requirements from the draft onto existing IETF working groups. This will help determine whether enough work is "left over" for one or more new working groups.

 

The mapping of requirements into "already covered", "generic ISP requirement", "wireless-specific ISP requirement" and "legacy systems issue" or some similar mapping will also be important, in order to create a reasonable scope for any proposed working group.

 

I hope that a variety of opinions will be expressed at the BOF, and that we'll find constituencies with enough mutual self-interest to jointly solve a specific set of problems.

 

Chris

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: John G. Waclawsky [mailto:jgw@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:40 AM
To: tim clifford
Cc: David Lindert; more@psg.com
Subject: Re: BOF Speakers Needed

That's a good idea too. I am not sure what is the best way. We need a tie breaker or some more organization perspectives or suggestions.            Regards  John

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-----
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
 

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

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...