Charlie, It was 2005, a warm May week in Athens when SA2, RAN2 and RAN3 had a meeting., and EPS took its first steps.. This, for example, was on a table: http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_46_Athens/Docs/S2-051260.zip That did/does not too bad actually. I still remember some operator folk standing up back then and giving a loud comment "This science fiction.." ;-)
- Jouni On Nov 3, 2011, at 7:49 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote: > Hello folks, > > For several years now, I have been studying 4G wireless > network architecture and wondering why there is such a > disconnect between, say, LTE mobility management and > IETF mobility management. Mobile IP has a secondary > role, to say the least. IETF approaches may be seen to > have several inadequacies, and 3GPP approaches also show > some major problems. I think that it is important for > the IETF to devote some serious effort towards bringing > these two worlds together, because current directions > are leading towards an impossibly baroque, wasteful, > nearly impenetrable mess of complication. The effects > overall is loss of performance and opportunity. > > Taking a look at S101 and S103, we can immediately > recognize that they are drastically more complicated, > restrictive, and operationally more expensive than > Mobile IP. Taking a look at S102, we immediately see > that 3GPP mobility management threatens to be different > for each class of application, with an unnecessary > per-application proliferation of servers, protocol, > permissions, traffic controls, configuration, and so on. > Taking a look at recent efforts towards WiFi offload, > we see the same trend of complication and software > hacks that could be avoided with proper IETF > approaches. > > On the IETF side, we should specify: > - Integrated authentication for access control > as well as IP address continuity > - Location-assisted handovers (think MIIS / ANDSF) > - Modular/alternative security > - Signaling on control plane, user traffic on > data plane > - Alternative tunneling (GTP is simply not going > to die a quick death, to say the least) > - geez, the list does go on, but no one reads > long lists ... > ... > > I don't know if we already have 3GPP liaison, but > if we do the communication channels don't seem to > have had very much effect within the [mext] work > lately. > > My fear is that if we don't take action, we are > choosing a future that is ever more complicated, > non-extendible, non-flexible, radio technology > specific, application specific, and bug-ridden. > In short, everything we don't want the Internet > to be. And, I am sure no one here doubts that > the Internet of the future is all high-speed > wireless. Where is the IETF going to be? > > If the [mext] working group is shut down, there > is no natural place for this work to happen. > Therefore, I hope that [mext] would NOT shut > down, and instead recharter to tackle these > urgent problems. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > > On 10/28/2011 5:08 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: >> All, >> >> We are making some changes to the working group. While we have >> successfully published a large number of specifications in recent years, >> recently it has been difficult to make progress in the group. The chairs >> and ADs have looked at the situation and we believe we need a new focus >> and a bit of new organization as well. We are terminating the working >> group and moving the one remaining active work item to a new working >> group, the "DMM" working group. Here's what is going to happen: >> >> o Jouni Korhonen and Julien Laganier will become the chairs of the group. >> >> o The group will meet in Taipei (there is a MEXT slot in the agenda). >> >> o The charter of the group will be changed to focus only on the >> distributed mobility effort. We should discuss the details of this >> charter change both on the list and in the meeting. The meeting agenda >> should reserve some time both for technical discussions as well as the >> charter discussion. >> >> o Once the discussion on the list and in the meeting has finished, we >> will rename the group to "DMM" and put the new charter in effect. >> >> o If there are any other specifications that people would like to >> publish beyond the distributed mobility work, we can offer to AD sponsor >> them to RFCs outside the new working group. If there is some significant >> new activity, we can create new working groups for that. >> >> Comments and feedback and/or alternate suggestions on this plan are >> welcome. >> >> We would like to thank Marcelo for your many years of service in MEXT. >> We could not have completed all the work we did without your energy and >> push for high quality results. We would also like to thank Jouni for >> taking on this new challenge, and Julien for continuing the work in this >> space. >> >> Jari and Ralph >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
