IETF/IEEE 802 Liaison Report
Bernard Aboba
January 2006
Status Reports
Dorothy Stanley’s January report on the IEEE 802.11 liaison to IETF is available here:
11-06-0177-00-0000-ietf-liaison-report-january-2006.ppt
Liaison Appointments
Dan Romascanu has been appointed the IEEE 802.1 liaison to IETF, taking over from Paul Congdon.
Liaison Communications
We have received a liaison communication from IEEE 802.21 (Media Independent Handover):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file263.pdf
The letter offers access to the IEEE 802.21 work in progress to the IETF MIPSHOP WG. The chairs of MIPSHOP (Gabriel Montenegro and Stefano Facin) will take care of providing access to MIPSHOP WG participants. The IETF’s response is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file271.txt
A liaison communication has been received from the IEEE 802.16 liaison to IETF, Jeff Mandin. The letter suggests cooperation between 802.16, IETF and 802.1 on determining the approach to encapsulation of IP over 802.16. While a proposed 802.16k PAR on bridging appears to presume Ethernet CS encapsulation, 802.16 has also envisaged other potential IP encapsulations. This has raised questions of how hosts are to know what IP encapsulation is to be used in a given situation.
MIB transfer
A conference call on the Bridge MIB transfer issues was held on January 11, 2006. The IETF legal counsel, Jorge Contreras was present on the call.
The Manager of Standards IPR for IEEE, Claudio M. Stanziola, has prepared a draft of a copyright permission request letter to be sent to authors of MIBs considered as part of the MIB transfer work. Language proposed by Jorge was used a template. A copy of the letter is enclosed below.
14 February 2006
AUTHOR
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
RE: Copyright Permission re: IEEE P802.1
The IEEE P802.1 working group wishes to incorporate portions of IETF RFC XXXX (specifically YYY MIB modules) as part of IEEE Draft Standard P802.1 and, to develop, modify and evolve such portions as part of the IEEE standardization process.
Because the authors of contributions to the IETF standards retain most intellectual property rights with respect to such contributions under IETF policies in effect during the development of RFC XXXX and, because you are an author of said document, the IEEE hereby requests that you kindly agree to submit your contributions in RFC XXXX to the IEEE for inclusion in IEEE P802.1. Please note that IETF is aware of and supports this request.
Attached hereto, please find a copyright permission letter template that we ask you to kindly sign and return, granting the afore mentioned rights to the IEEE.
Sincerely yours,
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:01:19 +0200 From: Jeff Mandin <streetwaves@gmail.com> Reply-To: jmandin@streetwaves-networks.com To: Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com> Subject: Question for IEEE 802.1(6)?
Bernard,
802.16-2004, 16e, and now .16g have for the most part endeavoured to remain open to multiple schemes for IP transport. 802.16 Working Group discussions have generally assumed that different schemes are appropriate for particular deployment environments (eg. PPPoE is viewed by some as an appropriate approach when .16 is used for DSL replacement, but perhaps not in other environments such as mobile) and that these determinations would be made by vendors or in other standards organizations.
As you suggest, technical cooperation between 802.16, IETF, and the 802 Standing Architecture Committee on this issue could be beneficial. Such cooperation would best be initiated by the IESG sending a formal liaison letter to 802.16 so that the WG membership and 802 Architecture could be made aware of the issue.
Please note that there is a proposed PAR for .16 that might have some bearing on the work that you are describing. If approved, 802.16k ( http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_003.pdf ) will amend 802.1D so as to clarify how transparent bridging should operate over 802.16 (some more background is at http://ieee802.org/16/arc/802-16list2/msg03127.html ). This project would seem to clarify at least one method of IP transport (since mechanisms for IP transport over 802.1D would seem to apply regardless of whether 802.16 is used for part or all of bridged network). Of course other methods of IP transport are still possible.
Please let me know if there are any timeframe issues here, or if I can provide any additional information or assistance.
Best Regards,
Jeff Mandin
IEEE 802.16 liaison to the IETF