RE: BOF Speakers Needed

[Dave Lindert <dlindert@cisco.com>]

At 02:06 PM 7/18/01 -0400, 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.

Thanks for the comments, I use the catagories based on how Dana, a long 
time IETF participant, seemed to work his comments, that this might be the 
type of views we would hear at the BoF.


>
>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.

Yes this is a good way to address this, and anything left over would be 
where we would try to have a working group.

Per John's question, I'll try to take a cut at this.

Dave...


>
>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...
>>