headers
Hesham Soliman | 1 Dec 2006 01:10

RE: Usage Requirement - Personal Mobile Router

 TJ, 

 > Sorry, it's simply not a well-defined-enough item to add to the
 > charter, which is in the end stages of editing. There would have to
 > be more discussion, especially of the concrete specifics of PMR
 > deployment cases, and what exactly is needed, before adding to the
 > next version of the charter. I don't see enough need to work on this
 > problem right now. In fact I'm not entirely sure what the "problem" is.

=> I think the last sentence above is exactly what makes me wonder what
we're talking about. I completely agree with you, what is the problem? What
documents will be produced ? what's specific to a mobile phone being a
router as far as this WG is concerned? 
Of course a vendor has specifics in terms of HW, deployment issues...etc but
it's not clear what is specific for the IETF here that warrants a new
solution. 

Hesham

 > 
 > TJ
 >
Permalink | Reply | 21 comments |
headers
Vijay Devarapalli | 1 Dec 2006 01:42

Re: Usage Requirement - Personal Mobile Router

Hesham Soliman wrote:
>  TJ, 
> 
>  > Sorry, it's simply not a well-defined-enough item to add to the
>  > charter, which is in the end stages of editing. There would have to
>  > be more discussion, especially of the concrete specifics of PMR
>  > deployment cases, and what exactly is needed, before adding to the
>  > next version of the charter. I don't see enough need to work on this
>  > problem right now. In fact I'm not entirely sure what the "problem" is.
> 
> => I think the last sentence above is exactly what makes me wonder what
> we're talking about. I completely agree with you, what is the problem? 

there is a market for personal mobile routers. there
are IPv4 products already available. problem is about
route optimization for these PMRs.

> What
> documents will be produced ? 

just to be clear, nobody is proposing to start working
on a solution in the NEMO WG yet. the proposal is to
add the following as Thierry suggested.

> - Gather requirements for NEMO Route Optimization in deployment
>   scenarios.
> 
>     - Automotive industry who are deploying NEMO for in-car
>       communication, entertainment, and data gathering, possible
>       control systems use, and communication to roadside devices.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 20 comments |
headers
T.J. Kniveton | 1 Dec 2006 01:45

Re: Usage Requirement - Personal Mobile Router

On Nov 30, 2006, at 4:42 PM, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> just to be clear, nobody is proposing to start working
> on a solution in the NEMO WG yet. the proposal is to
> add the following as Thierry suggested.
>

>>  - The consumer eletronic industry, who is willing to deploy
>> NEMO-embedded Personal Mobile Router for Personal Area Networks  
>> (PANs).

Can you identify which members of the consumer electronics industry  
are willing to deploy (I assume that means "sell") PMRs for PANs, and  
what specifically are the problems they ran into when building /  
deploying them? Maybe then I can understand the work item that would  
come out of this, and if the work item is to begin with requirements  
gathering, who we would go talk to to get requirements in order to  
solve the problem that I still can't identify.

Thanks,
TJ
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Hesham Soliman | 1 Dec 2006 01:47

RE: Usage Requirement - Personal Mobile Router


 > > => I think the last sentence above is exactly what makes 
 > me wonder what
 > > we're talking about. I completely agree with you, what is 
 > the problem? 
 > 
 > there is a market for personal mobile routers. there
 > are IPv4 products already available. problem is about
 > route optimization for these PMRs.

=> Yes of course there is a market, my followup question was about what
warrants a special approach to RO for that market. Why is there something
specific for that market? I don't think that case has been made. 

 > just to be clear, nobody is proposing to start working
 > on a solution in the NEMO WG yet. the proposal is to
 > add the following as Thierry suggested.
 > 
 > > - Gather requirements for NEMO Route Optimization in deployment
 > >   scenarios.
 > > 
 > >     - Automotive industry who are deploying NEMO for in-car
 > >       communication, entertainment, and data gathering, possible
 > >       control systems use, and communication to roadside devices.
 > > 
 > >     - Airline and spacecraft community, who are deploying NEMO for
 > >       control systems, as well as Internet connectivity and
 > >       entertainment systems.
 > > 
 > >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Chan-Wah Ng | 1 Dec 2006 03:30

RE: Usage Requirement - Personal Mobile Router

On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 11:47 +1100, Hesham Soliman wrote:
>  
> 
>  > > => I think the last sentence above is exactly what makes 
>  > me wonder what
>  > > we're talking about. I completely agree with you, what is 
>  > the problem? 
>  > 
>  > there is a market for personal mobile routers. there
>  > are IPv4 products already available. problem is about
>  > route optimization for these PMRs.
> 
> => Yes of course there is a market, my followup question was about what
> warrants a special approach to RO for that market. Why is there something
> specific for that market? I don't think that case has been made. 
> 
>  > just to be clear, nobody is proposing to start working
>  > on a solution in the NEMO WG yet. the proposal is to
>  > add the following as Thierry suggested.
>  > 
>  > > - Gather requirements for NEMO Route Optimization in deployment
>  > >   scenarios.
>  > > 
>  > >     - Automotive industry who are deploying NEMO for in-car
>  > >       communication, entertainment, and data gathering, possible
>  > >       control systems use, and communication to roadside devices.
>  > > 
>  > >     - Airline and spacecraft community, who are deploying NEMO for
>  > >       control systems, as well as Internet connectivity and
>  > >       entertainment systems.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Chan-Wah Ng | 1 Dec 2006 03:46

Re: Usage Requirement - Personal Mobile Router

Hello, TJ, Vijay,

On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 16:45 -0800, T.J. Kniveton wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2006, at 4:42 PM, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> > just to be clear, nobody is proposing to start working
> > on a solution in the NEMO WG yet. the proposal is to
> > add the following as Thierry suggested.
> >
> 
> >>  - The consumer eletronic industry, who is willing to deploy
> >> NEMO-embedded Personal Mobile Router for Personal Area Networks  
> >> (PANs).
> 
> Can you identify which members of the consumer electronics industry  
> are willing to deploy (I assume that means "sell") PMRs for PANs, and  
> what specifically are the problems they ran into when building /  
> deploying them?

I could talk to someone in my (parent) organization for this.

>  Maybe then I can understand the work item that would  
> come out of this, and if the work item is to begin with requirements  
> gathering, who we would go talk to to get requirements in order to  
> solve the problem that I still can't identify.
> 

"problem I still can't identify" 

-> and you could with the aviation and automobile industries but not the
CE?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Hesham Soliman | 1 Dec 2006 04:21

RE: Usage Requirement - Personal Mobile Router


 > > => I can live with the requirements gathering, but I don't 
 > think we should
 > > go beyond that and venture into solutions for specific 
 > markets unless a very
 > > strong case is made. 
 > > 
 > 
 > Fair enough, the idea behind the requirements gathering was to see if
 > NEMO Basic would satisfy the requirements, if not, what needs to be
 > done, and whether is it worth doing.  Sounds okay to you?

=> To be honest it sounds wishy washy to me and for that reason it's hard to
either endorse it or be against it. It's not clear to me what aspects of the
requirements we're looking at and what could be specific to those
deployments. I haven't heard anything concrete to make me think there is
work to do (which is why you put things in the charter), other than the
obvious "mobile phones would be a potential user of nemo" but of course
we've always known that.

Hesham

 > 
 > /rgds
 > /cwng
 > 
 > 
 > 
 >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
BINET David RD-CORE-CAE | 1 Dec 2006 09:54

RE: Usage Requirement - Personal Mobile Router


Hi,

> 
>  
>  > > => I can live with the requirements gathering, but I 
> don't  > think we should  > > go beyond that and venture into 
> solutions for specific  > markets unless a very  > > strong 
> case is made. 
>  > >
>  >
>  > Fair enough, the idea behind the requirements gathering 
> was to see if  > NEMO Basic would satisfy the requirements, 
> if not, what needs to be  > done, and whether is it worth 
> doing.  Sounds okay to you?
> 
> => To be honest it sounds wishy washy to me and for that 
> reason it's hard to either endorse it or be against it. It's 
> not clear to me what aspects of the requirements we're 
> looking at and what could be specific to those deployments. I 
> haven't heard anything concrete to make me think there is 
> work to do (which is why you put things in the charter), 
> other than the obvious "mobile phones would be a potential 
> user of nemo" but of course we've always known that.
At this stage, the goal is to define requirements for PMR's use case as
it has been defined in the new charter for automotive and aviation
industries.
Are we sure that there are some specific issues in aviation and
automotive industries ? I do not think but I think it should be more
precisely carried out in order to have clear statement about this.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thierry Ernst | 1 Dec 2006 11:41
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Usage Requirement - Personal Mobile Router


To all who doubt about adding this line for the consumer electronics: 

If the requirements gathering process is pointless for PMR, why would it
be useful to the automotive and aviation industries ? This discussion is
non-sense, what we agreed is that we need to specify what are the
deployment needs for the identified uses cases (we had 2, now it's 3 use
cases), and those deployments needs can be expressed in terms of
configurations to be supported, RO, multihoming, etc.  

The output of these documents would be a better understanding on which
solutions the NEMO WG should work on (what are the RO needs - not what
are the RO problems since it is already documents) since we don't
already agree on that. Some people may argue that the gathering process
could simply be done on the ML, to which I would argue because - for
instance - people from the automotive industry need a sign from the IETF
in order to get themselves involved with us (traditionaly, they don't
speak up at the IETF, at least so far). And they will (they told me).
So, having a document for each identified use case would serve our case.

Please remember the roots of the requirements gathering process: this
was to make sure that there is a need to work on some of the RO and
multihoming issues.

So, charter wise, we only need to add a line in addition to the 2 use
cases already mentioned.

And, quite a lot of people have said they are willing to produce such a
document for PMR (including Vijay, ChanWah and other people already
involved in NEMO i.e. a good sign that this will move on rapidly). For
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
marcelo bagnulo braun | 1 Dec 2006 18:04
Picon

Re: Usage Requirement - Personal Mobile Router

I think it makes sense to analyze this scenario more deeply and see if 
there are some specific problems to this scenario that impose a 
different solution.
Obviously a possible outcome would be that nothing specific is needed, 
so there would not be need to work any more on this, but i think that 
at this point this is not clear.
Besides there seems to be enough energy on the wg to make such analysis 
and we could have a discussion with better background once a first 
version of the analysis of the problem is written.
Regards, marcelo

El 01/12/2006, a las 11:41, Thierry Ernst escribió:

>
>
> To all who doubt about adding this line for the consumer electronics:
>
> If the requirements gathering process is pointless for PMR, why would 
> it
> be useful to the automotive and aviation industries ? This discussion 
> is
> non-sense, what we agreed is that we need to specify what are the
> deployment needs for the identified uses cases (we had 2, now it's 3 
> use
> cases), and those deployments needs can be expressed in terms of
> configurations to be supported, RO, multihoming, etc.
>
> The output of these documents would be a better understanding on which
> solutions the NEMO WG should work on (what are the RO needs - not what
> are the RO problems since it is already documents) since we don't
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane