RE: BOF Speakers Needed

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

Tim,

I think this is a great idea. 

		jak
		
>From: "tim clifford" <tjc@lacunanet.net>
>To: "John G. Waclawsky" <jgw@cisco.com>, "David Lindert" <dlindert@cisco.com>
>Cc: <more@psg.com>
>Subject: RE: BOF Speakers Needed
>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:06:32 -0400
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
>Importance: Normal
>
>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...
>
>