[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Conclusion of RADEXT WG call for consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
After discussion between current chairs and AD, the conclusion we have reached is to approve this request as we believe rough consensus for approval has been achieved. The situation is bit peculiar in that a number of industry individuals expressed themselves in favor of approving the request, but sent their email to the incorrect email address (owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org rather than radiusext@ops.ietf.org). I have attached the emails for all those individuals who used the incorrect address.
The chairs appreciate the spirited conversation arising from this topic and do agree with the long-term RADIUS experts that these new types are not entirely in-line given the definition and past usage of the attribute. However, the chairs feel the misalignment between these new types and the attribute definition is not sufficiently large to warrant disallowing the allocation. We also took into account the industry support for immediate usage of these types into account.
So as to improve the usability of these new values, we will be asking IANA to include references to the appropriate WiMAX standards (and sections if available) in the IANA registry. Avi: We'd appreciate your assistance in getting us the right information to include.
If after this decision the WG would like to continue exploring a generalized solution to similar use cases, the chairs and AD are supportive.
-MS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final count
In Favor
Clearwire - Dave McGiniss, David Holmes
ZTE - Chu Li
Alcatel - Pertez Feder
Intel - Muthiah Venkatachala
Huawei - Ronal Mao
Samsun - Jungshin Park
NSN - Seyeedi Shahab
Sprint - Mark Lipford, Brent Hirschman
Bridgewater - Avi Lior
Opposed
Alan DeKok
Stefan Winter
Bernard Aboba
Dave Nelson
--- Begin Message ---
Yes.
-- Avi Lior
--Bridgewater Systems
On 17-05-11 22:52 , "Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)" <mauricio.sanchez@hp.com<mailto:mauricio.sanchez@hp.com>> wrote:
At this time we find ourselves with a mixed result between the in room sentiment at IETF 80 (which was negative to allocation) and the subsequent consensus poll (which was neutral/positive to allocation). As such, a final consensus poll is warranted to establish rough consensus in either direction.
Please respond to this email by May 24, 2011 with either a ‘yes’ (indicating allocation should occur) or a ‘no’ (indicating allocation should be denied). Please respond regardless of whether you commented at IETF 80 or to the below consensus poll.
Thanks,
Mauricio
From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org<mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:31 AM
To: 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org<mailto:'radiusext@ops.ietf.org>'
Subject: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
During IETF 80 one of the agenda topics discussed was whether to approve a request received by IANA for allocation of additional NAS-port-type values relating to Wimax as described below
Type of Assignment :
Nas-Port-Type values as follows:
TBD for WIMAX-3GPP-PRIF: WiMAX Pre-Release 8 IWK Function
TBD for WIMAX-WIFI-IWK: WiMAX WIFI Interworking
TBD for WIMAX-SFF: Signaling Forwarding Function for LTE/3GPP2.
TBD for WIMAX-HA-LMA: WiMAX HA and or LMA function.
TBD for WIMAX-DHCP : WIMAX DCHP service
TBD for WIMAX- LBS : WiMAX location based service
TBD for WIMAX-WVS : WiMAX voice service
The snippet of meeting notes relating to this topic are show below:
---- <meeting note snippet begin>---------------------------
Request for registration for NAS-port-type. Under 3575, falls under expert review. This request is for NAS-port-type relating to WiMax
- Stefan comments that there’s already type for WiFi so not sure why another one is needed, just one.
- Klaas comments that agrees with Stefan’s comments.
- Nancy comments that looking at the current assignment is that there is only 1 allocation per mode.
- Bernard takes the general comment of only allocating one as the response to take back to the request. Given consensus here, will verify that opinion in the reflector.
---- <meeting note snippet end>---------------------------
The sentiment in the room was clearly against approving this IANA request and at this time we would like to confirm this on the mailing list.
Please respond to this email and state whether you are in favor or against approving this IANA request.
Thanks,
MS
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Support
At this time we find ourselves with a mixed result between the in room sentiment at IETF 80 (which was negative to allocation) and the subsequent consensus poll (which was neutral/positive to allocation). As such, a final consensus poll is warranted to establish rough consensus in either direction.
Please respond to this email by May 24, 2011 with either a ‘yes’ (indicating allocation should occur) or a ‘no’ (indicating allocation should be denied). Please respond regardless of whether you commented at IETF 80 or to the below consensus poll.
Thanks,
Mauricio
From: [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:31 AM
To: 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org<mailto:'radiusext@ops.ietf.org>'
Subject: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
During IETF 80 one of the agenda topics discussed was whether to approve a request received by IANA for allocation of additional NAS-port-type values relating to Wimax as described below
Type of Assignment :
Nas-Port-Type values as follows:
TBD for WIMAX-3GPP-PRIF: WiMAX Pre-Release 8 IWK Function
TBD for WIMAX-WIFI-IWK: WiMAX WIFI Interworking
TBD for WIMAX-SFF: Signaling Forwarding Function for LTE/3GPP2.
TBD for WIMAX-HA-LMA: WiMAX HA and or LMA function.
TBD for WIMAX-DHCP : WIMAX DCHP service
TBD for WIMAX- LBS : WiMAX location based service
TBD for WIMAX-WVS : WiMAX voice service
The snippet of meeting notes relating to this topic are show below:
---- <meeting note snippet begin>---------------------------
Request for registration for NAS-port-type. Under 3575, falls under expert review. This request is for NAS-port-type relating to WiMax
- Stefan comments that there’s already type for WiFi so not sure why another one is needed, just one.
- Klaas comments that agrees with Stefan’s comments.
- Nancy comments that looking at the current assignment is that there is only 1 allocation per mode.
- Bernard takes the general comment of only allocating one as the response to take back to the request. Given consensus here, will verify that opinion in the reflector.
---- <meeting note snippet end>---------------------------
The sentiment in the room was clearly against approving this IANA request and at this time we would like to confirm this on the mailing list.
Please respond to this email and state whether you are in favor or against approving this IANA request.
Thanks,
MS
_____
This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes.
Thanks.
David Holmes
Standards Integration
clearwire
P (+1) (425) 247-7104
C (+1) (206) 696-6713
At this time we find ourselves with a mixed result between the in room sentiment at IETF 80 (which was negative to allocation) and the subsequent consensus poll (which was neutral/positive to allocation). As such, a final consensus poll is warranted to establish rough consensus in either direction.
Please respond to this email by May 24, 2011 with either a ‘yes’ (indicating allocation should occur) or a ‘no’ (indicating allocation should be denied). Please respond regardless of whether you commented at IETF 80 or to the below consensus poll.
Thanks,
Mauricio
From: [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:31 AM
To: 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org<mailto:'radiusext@ops.ietf.org>'
Subject: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
During IETF 80 one of the agenda topics discussed was whether to approve a request received by IANA for allocation of additional NAS-port-type values relating to Wimax as described below
Type of Assignment :
Nas-Port-Type values as follows:
TBD for WIMAX-3GPP-PRIF: WiMAX Pre-Release 8 IWK Function
TBD for WIMAX-WIFI-IWK: WiMAX WIFI Interworking
TBD for WIMAX-SFF: Signaling Forwarding Function for LTE/3GPP2.
TBD for WIMAX-HA-LMA: WiMAX HA and or LMA function.
TBD for WIMAX-DHCP : WIMAX DCHP service
TBD for WIMAX- LBS : WiMAX location based service
TBD for WIMAX-WVS : WiMAX voice service
The snippet of meeting notes relating to this topic are show below:
---- <meeting note snippet begin>---------------------------
Request for registration for NAS-port-type. Under 3575, falls under expert review. This request is for NAS-port-type relating to WiMax
- Stefan comments that there’s already type for WiFi so not sure why another one is needed, just one.
- Klaas comments that agrees with Stefan’s comments.
- Nancy comments that looking at the current assignment is that there is only 1 allocation per mode.
- Bernard takes the general comment of only allocating one as the response to take back to the request. Given consensus here, will verify that opinion in the reflector.
---- <meeting note snippet end>---------------------------
The sentiment in the room was clearly against approving this IANA request and at this time we would like to confirm this on the mailing list.
Please respond to this email and state whether you are in favor or against approving this IANA request.
Thanks,
MS
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes as well
Mark A. Lipford
Manager - Industry Standards
Sprint Nextel
6220 Sprint Parkway
Mailstop: KSOPHD0402-4B350
Overland Park, KS 66251 USA
+1 (913) 762-6740 (Office)
+1 (913) 579-2319 (Mobile)
email: mark.a.lipford@sprint.com<mailto:mark.a.lipford@sprint.com>
From: David Holmes [mailto:David.Holmes@clearwire.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:05 PM
To: mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> (avi@bridgewatersystems.com); Lipford, Mark A [CTO]; nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes.
Thanks.
David Holmes
Standards Integration
clearwire
P (+1) (425) 247-7104
C (+1) (206) 696-6713
At this time we find ourselves with a mixed result between the in room sentiment at IETF 80 (which was negative to allocation) and the subsequent consensus poll (which was neutral/positive to allocation). As such, a final consensus poll is warranted to establish rough consensus in either direction.
Please respond to this email by May 24, 2011 with either a ‘yes’ (indicating allocation should occur) or a ‘no’ (indicating allocation should be denied). Please respond regardless of whether you commented at IETF 80 or to the below consensus poll.
Thanks,
Mauricio
From: [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:31 AM
To: 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org<mailto:'radiusext@ops.ietf.org>'
Subject: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
During IETF 80 one of the agenda topics discussed was whether to approve a request received by IANA for allocation of additional NAS-port-type values relating to Wimax as described below
Type of Assignment :
Nas-Port-Type values as follows:
TBD for WIMAX-3GPP-PRIF: WiMAX Pre-Release 8 IWK Function
TBD for WIMAX-WIFI-IWK: WiMAX WIFI Interworking
TBD for WIMAX-SFF: Signaling Forwarding Function for LTE/3GPP2.
TBD for WIMAX-HA-LMA: WiMAX HA and or LMA function.
TBD for WIMAX-DHCP : WIMAX DCHP service
TBD for WIMAX- LBS : WiMAX location based service
TBD for WIMAX-WVS : WiMAX voice service
The snippet of meeting notes relating to this topic are show below:
---- <meeting note snippet begin>---------------------------
Request for registration for NAS-port-type. Under 3575, falls under expert review. This request is for NAS-port-type relating to WiMax
- Stefan comments that there’s already type for WiFi so not sure why another one is needed, just one.
- Klaas comments that agrees with Stefan’s comments.
- Nancy comments that looking at the current assignment is that there is only 1 allocation per mode.
- Bernard takes the general comment of only allocating one as the response to take back to the request. Given consensus here, will verify that opinion in the reflector.
---- <meeting note snippet end>---------------------------
The sentiment in the room was clearly against approving this IANA request and at this time we would like to confirm this on the mailing list.
Please respond to this email and state whether you are in favor or against approving this IANA request.
Thanks,
MS
_____
This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
YES.
Regards,,
Shahab Sayeedi
From: ext Lipford, Mark A [CTO] [mailto:Mark.A.Lipford@sprint.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 8:50 AM
To: David Holmes; mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> (avi@bridgewatersystems.com); nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes as well
Mark A. Lipford
Manager - Industry Standards
Sprint Nextel
6220 Sprint Parkway
Mailstop: KSOPHD0402-4B350
Overland Park, KS 66251 USA
+1 (913) 762-6740 (Office)
+1 (913) 579-2319 (Mobile)
email: mark.a.lipford@sprint.com<mailto:mark.a.lipford@sprint.com>
From: David Holmes [mailto:David.Holmes@clearwire.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:05 PM
To: mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> (avi@bridgewatersystems.com); Lipford, Mark A [CTO]; nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes.
Thanks.
David Holmes
Standards Integration
clearwire
P (+1) (425) 247-7104
C (+1) (206) 696-6713
At this time we find ourselves with a mixed result between the in room sentiment at IETF 80 (which was negative to allocation) and the subsequent consensus poll (which was neutral/positive to allocation). As such, a final consensus poll is warranted to establish rough consensus in either direction.
Please respond to this email by May 24, 2011 with either a ‘yes’ (indicating allocation should occur) or a ‘no’ (indicating allocation should be denied). Please respond regardless of whether you commented at IETF 80 or to the below consensus poll.
Thanks,
Mauricio
From: [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:31 AM
To: 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org<mailto:'radiusext@ops.ietf.org>'
Subject: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
During IETF 80 one of the agenda topics discussed was whether to approve a request received by IANA for allocation of additional NAS-port-type values relating to Wimax as described below
Type of Assignment :
Nas-Port-Type values as follows:
TBD for WIMAX-3GPP-PRIF: WiMAX Pre-Release 8 IWK Function
TBD for WIMAX-WIFI-IWK: WiMAX WIFI Interworking
TBD for WIMAX-SFF: Signaling Forwarding Function for LTE/3GPP2.
TBD for WIMAX-HA-LMA: WiMAX HA and or LMA function.
TBD for WIMAX-DHCP : WIMAX DCHP service
TBD for WIMAX- LBS : WiMAX location based service
TBD for WIMAX-WVS : WiMAX voice service
The snippet of meeting notes relating to this topic are show below:
---- <meeting note snippet begin>---------------------------
Request for registration for NAS-port-type. Under 3575, falls under expert review. This request is for NAS-port-type relating to WiMax
- Stefan comments that there’s already type for WiFi so not sure why another one is needed, just one.
- Klaas comments that agrees with Stefan’s comments.
- Nancy comments that looking at the current assignment is that there is only 1 allocation per mode.
- Bernard takes the general comment of only allocating one as the response to take back to the request. Given consensus here, will verify that opinion in the reflector.
---- <meeting note snippet end>---------------------------
The sentiment in the room was clearly against approving this IANA request and at this time we would like to confirm this on the mailing list.
Please respond to this email and state whether you are in favor or against approving this IANA request.
Thanks,
MS
_____
This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes.
Samsung also supports.
Regards,
Jungshin
From: Sayeedi Shahab-CLXR88 [mailto:shahab.sayeedi@nsn.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:44 AM
To: ext Lipford, Mark A [CTO]; David Holmes; mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: avi@bridgewatersystems.com; nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: RE: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
YES.
Regards,,
Shahab Sayeedi
From: ext Lipford, Mark A [CTO] [mailto:Mark.A.Lipford@sprint.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 8:50 AM
To: David Holmes; mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> (avi@bridgewatersystems.com); nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes as well
Mark A. Lipford
Manager - Industry Standards
Sprint Nextel
6220 Sprint Parkway
Mailstop: KSOPHD0402-4B350
Overland Park, KS 66251 USA
+1 (913) 762-6740 (Office)
+1 (913) 579-2319 (Mobile)
email: mark.a.lipford@sprint.com<mailto:mark.a.lipford@sprint.com>
From: David Holmes [mailto:David.Holmes@clearwire.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:05 PM
To: mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> (avi@bridgewatersystems.com); Lipford, Mark A [CTO]; nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes.
Thanks.
David Holmes
Standards Integration
clearwire
P (+1) (425) 247-7104
C (+1) (206) 696-6713
At this time we find ourselves with a mixed result between the in room sentiment at IETF 80 (which was negative to allocation) and the subsequent consensus poll (which was neutral/positive to allocation). As such, a final consensus poll is warranted to establish rough consensus in either direction.
Please respond to this email by May 24, 2011 with either a ‘yes’ (indicating allocation should occur) or a ‘no’ (indicating allocation should be denied). Please respond regardless of whether you commented at IETF 80 or to the below consensus poll.
Thanks,
Mauricio
From: [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:31 AM
To: 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org<mailto:'radiusext@ops.ietf.org>'
Subject: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
During IETF 80 one of the agenda topics discussed was whether to approve a request received by IANA for allocation of additional NAS-port-type values relating to Wimax as described below
Type of Assignment :
Nas-Port-Type values as follows:
TBD for WIMAX-3GPP-PRIF: WiMAX Pre-Release 8 IWK Function
TBD for WIMAX-WIFI-IWK: WiMAX WIFI Interworking
TBD for WIMAX-SFF: Signaling Forwarding Function for LTE/3GPP2.
TBD for WIMAX-HA-LMA: WiMAX HA and or LMA function.
TBD for WIMAX-DHCP : WIMAX DCHP service
TBD for WIMAX- LBS : WiMAX location based service
TBD for WIMAX-WVS : WiMAX voice service
The snippet of meeting notes relating to this topic are show below:
---- <meeting note snippet begin>---------------------------
Request for registration for NAS-port-type. Under 3575, falls under expert review. This request is for NAS-port-type relating to WiMax
- Stefan comments that there’s already type for WiFi so not sure why another one is needed, just one.
- Klaas comments that agrees with Stefan’s comments.
- Nancy comments that looking at the current assignment is that there is only 1 allocation per mode.
- Bernard takes the general comment of only allocating one as the response to take back to the request. Given consensus here, will verify that opinion in the reflector.
---- <meeting note snippet end>---------------------------
The sentiment in the room was clearly against approving this IANA request and at this time we would like to confirm this on the mailing list.
Please respond to this email and state whether you are in favor or against approving this IANA request.
Thanks,
MS
_____
This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: "'Park,Jungshin'" <shin02.park@samsung.com>, 'Sayeedi Shahab-CLXR88' <shahab.sayeedi@nsn.com>, "'ext Lipford, Mark A [CTO]'" <Mark.A.Lipford@sprint.com>, 'David Holmes' <David.Holmes@clearwire.com>, "Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)" <mauricio.sanchez@hp.com>, "owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
- Subject: RE: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
- From: Ronald Mao <rmao@huawei.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 17:02:46 +0000
- Cc: "avi@bridgewatersystems.com" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>, "nwg@list.wimaxforum.org" <nwg@list.wimaxforum.org>
- In-reply-to: <013b01cc18ff$1ada6830$508f3890$%park@samsung.com>
- References: <C4715168EEA33F45A991F44919122FF4086C5793@cwch3excapsw003.NA.corp.clearwire.com> <7B9295EFE571004E960BA80D9DA77F042479EF03@PLSWM03B.ad.sprint.com> <EEA9B9126DCC3D4EAE127F122BD926BE08832870@de01exm70.ds.mot.com> <013b01cc18ff$1ada6830$508f3890$%park@samsung.com>
- Thread-index: AcwWgY85bdmrpkcwR/Gn6F8iep7MOgAcyy/QAAP5PEAAfpgcgAAbCQ5A
- Thread-topic: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes from Huawei.
Ronald
From: Park,Jungshin [mailto:shin02.park@samsung.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 9:09 PM
To: 'Sayeedi Shahab-CLXR88'; 'ext Lipford, Mark A [CTO]'; 'David Holmes'; mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: avi@bridgewatersystems.com; nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: RE: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes.
Samsung also supports.
Regards,
Jungshin
From: Sayeedi Shahab-CLXR88 [mailto:shahab.sayeedi@nsn.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:44 AM
To: ext Lipford, Mark A [CTO]; David Holmes; mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: avi@bridgewatersystems.com; nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: RE: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
YES.
Regards,,
Shahab Sayeedi
From: ext Lipford, Mark A [CTO] [mailto:Mark.A.Lipford@sprint.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 8:50 AM
To: David Holmes; mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> (avi@bridgewatersystems.com); nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes as well
Mark A. Lipford
Manager - Industry Standards
Sprint Nextel
6220 Sprint Parkway
Mailstop: KSOPHD0402-4B350
Overland Park, KS 66251 USA
+1 (913) 762-6740 (Office)
+1 (913) 579-2319 (Mobile)
email: mark.a.lipford@sprint.com<mailto:mark.a.lipford@sprint.com>
From: David Holmes [mailto:David.Holmes@clearwire.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:05 PM
To: mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> (avi@bridgewatersystems.com); Lipford, Mark A [CTO]; nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes.
Thanks.
David Holmes
Standards Integration
clearwire
P (+1) (425) 247-7104
C (+1) (206) 696-6713
At this time we find ourselves with a mixed result between the in room sentiment at IETF 80 (which was negative to allocation) and the subsequent consensus poll (which was neutral/positive to allocation). As such, a final consensus poll is warranted to establish rough consensus in either direction.
Please respond to this email by May 24, 2011 with either a ‘yes’ (indicating allocation should occur) or a ‘no’ (indicating allocation should be denied). Please respond regardless of whether you commented at IETF 80 or to the below consensus poll.
Thanks,
Mauricio
From: [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:31 AM
To: 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org<mailto:'radiusext@ops.ietf.org>'
Subject: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
During IETF 80 one of the agenda topics discussed was whether to approve a request received by IANA for allocation of additional NAS-port-type values relating to Wimax as described below
Type of Assignment :
Nas-Port-Type values as follows:
TBD for WIMAX-3GPP-PRIF: WiMAX Pre-Release 8 IWK Function
TBD for WIMAX-WIFI-IWK: WiMAX WIFI Interworking
TBD for WIMAX-SFF: Signaling Forwarding Function for LTE/3GPP2.
TBD for WIMAX-HA-LMA: WiMAX HA and or LMA function.
TBD for WIMAX-DHCP : WIMAX DCHP service
TBD for WIMAX- LBS : WiMAX location based service
TBD for WIMAX-WVS : WiMAX voice service
The snippet of meeting notes relating to this topic are show below:
---- <meeting note snippet begin>---------------------------
Request for registration for NAS-port-type. Under 3575, falls under expert review. This request is for NAS-port-type relating to WiMax
- Stefan comments that there’s already type for WiFi so not sure why another one is needed, just one.
- Klaas comments that agrees with Stefan’s comments.
- Nancy comments that looking at the current assignment is that there is only 1 allocation per mode.
- Bernard takes the general comment of only allocating one as the response to take back to the request. Given consensus here, will verify that opinion in the reflector.
---- <meeting note snippet end>---------------------------
The sentiment in the room was clearly against approving this IANA request and at this time we would like to confirm this on the mailing list.
Please respond to this email and state whether you are in favor or against approving this IANA request.
Thanks,
MS
_____
This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Ronald Mao <rmao@huawei.com>, "'Park,Jungshin'" <shin02.park@samsung.com>, 'Sayeedi Shahab-CLXR88' <shahab.sayeedi@nsn.com>, "'ext Lipford, Mark A [CTO]'" <Mark.A.Lipford@sprint.com>, 'David Holmes' <David.Holmes@clearwire.com>, "Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)" <mauricio.sanchez@hp.com>, "owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
- Subject: RE: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
- From: "Venkatachalam, Muthaiah" <muthaiah.venkatachalam@intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 17:08:17 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Cc: "avi@bridgewatersystems.com" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>, "nwg@list.wimaxforum.org" <nwg@list.wimaxforum.org>
- In-reply-to: <00df01cc196b$3df1beb0$b9d53c10$@com>
- References: <C4715168EEA33F45A991F44919122FF4086C5793@cwch3excapsw003.NA.corp.clearwire.com> <7B9295EFE571004E960BA80D9DA77F042479EF03@PLSWM03B.ad.sprint.com> <EEA9B9126DCC3D4EAE127F122BD926BE08832870@de01exm70.ds.mot.com> <013b01cc18ff$1ada6830$508f3890$%park@samsung.com> <00df01cc196b$3df1beb0$b9d53c10$@com>
- Thread-index: AcwWgY85bdmrpkcwR/Gn6F8iep7MOgAcyy/QAAP5PEAAfpgcgAAbCQ5AAAA06rA=
- Thread-topic: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes from Intel.
From: Ronald Mao [mailto:rmao@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:03 AM
To: 'Park,Jungshin'; 'Sayeedi Shahab-CLXR88'; 'ext Lipford, Mark A [CTO]'; 'David Holmes'; mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: avi@bridgewatersystems.com; nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: RE: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes from Huawei.
Ronald
From: Park,Jungshin [mailto:shin02.park@samsung.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 9:09 PM
To: 'Sayeedi Shahab-CLXR88'; 'ext Lipford, Mark A [CTO]'; 'David Holmes'; mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: avi@bridgewatersystems.com; nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: RE: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes.
Samsung also supports.
Regards,
Jungshin
From: Sayeedi Shahab-CLXR88 [mailto:shahab.sayeedi@nsn.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:44 AM
To: ext Lipford, Mark A [CTO]; David Holmes; mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: avi@bridgewatersystems.com; nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: RE: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
YES.
Regards,,
Shahab Sayeedi
From: ext Lipford, Mark A [CTO] [mailto:Mark.A.Lipford@sprint.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 8:50 AM
To: David Holmes; mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> (avi@bridgewatersystems.com); nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes as well
Mark A. Lipford
Manager - Industry Standards
Sprint Nextel
6220 Sprint Parkway
Mailstop: KSOPHD0402-4B350
Overland Park, KS 66251 USA
+1 (913) 762-6740 (Office)
+1 (913) 579-2319 (Mobile)
email: mark.a.lipford@sprint.com<mailto:mark.a.lipford@sprint.com>
From: David Holmes [mailto:David.Holmes@clearwire.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:05 PM
To: mauricio.sanchez@hp.com; owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> (avi@bridgewatersystems.com); Lipford, Mark A [CTO]; nwg@list.wimaxforum.org
Subject: RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Yes.
Thanks.
David Holmes
Standards Integration
clearwire
P (+1) (425) 247-7104
C (+1) (206) 696-6713
At this time we find ourselves with a mixed result between the in room sentiment at IETF 80 (which was negative to allocation) and the subsequent consensus poll (which was neutral/positive to allocation). As such, a final consensus poll is warranted to establish rough consensus in either direction.
Please respond to this email by May 24, 2011 with either a ‘yes’ (indicating allocation should occur) or a ‘no’ (indicating allocation should be denied). Please respond regardless of whether you commented at IETF 80 or to the below consensus poll.
Thanks,
Mauricio
From: [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:31 AM
To: 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org<mailto:'radiusext@ops.ietf.org>'
Subject: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
During IETF 80 one of the agenda topics discussed was whether to approve a request received by IANA for allocation of additional NAS-port-type values relating to Wimax as described below
Type of Assignment :
Nas-Port-Type values as follows:
TBD for WIMAX-3GPP-PRIF: WiMAX Pre-Release 8 IWK Function
TBD for WIMAX-WIFI-IWK: WiMAX WIFI Interworking
TBD for WIMAX-SFF: Signaling Forwarding Function for LTE/3GPP2.
TBD for WIMAX-HA-LMA: WiMAX HA and or LMA function.
TBD for WIMAX-DHCP : WIMAX DCHP service
TBD for WIMAX- LBS : WiMAX location based service
TBD for WIMAX-WVS : WiMAX voice service
The snippet of meeting notes relating to this topic are show below:
---- <meeting note snippet begin>---------------------------
Request for registration for NAS-port-type. Under 3575, falls under expert review. This request is for NAS-port-type relating to WiMax
- Stefan comments that there’s already type for WiFi so not sure why another one is needed, just one.
- Klaas comments that agrees with Stefan’s comments.
- Nancy comments that looking at the current assignment is that there is only 1 allocation per mode.
- Bernard takes the general comment of only allocating one as the response to take back to the request. Given consensus here, will verify that opinion in the reflector.
---- <meeting note snippet end>---------------------------
The sentiment in the room was clearly against approving this IANA request and at this time we would like to confirm this on the mailing list.
Please respond to this email and state whether you are in favor or against approving this IANA request.
Thanks,
MS
_____
This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Ronald Mao <rmao@huawei.com>, "'Park,Jungshin'" <shin02.park@samsung.com>, 'Sayeedi Shahab-CLXR88' <shahab.sayeedi@nsn.com>, "'ext Lipford, Mark A [CTO]'" <Mark.A.Lipford@sprint.com>, 'David Holmes' <David.Holmes@clearwire.com>, "Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)" <mauricio.sanchez@hp.com>, "owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
- Subject: RE: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
- From: "Feder, Peretz (Peretz)" <peretz.feder@alcatel-lucent.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 17:41:24 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- In-reply-to: <00df01cc196b$3df1beb0$b9d53c10$@com>
- References: <C4715168EEA33F45A991F44919122FF4086C5793@cwch3excapsw003.NA.corp.clearwire.com> <7B9295EFE571004E960BA80D9DA77F042479EF03@PLSWM03B.ad.sprint.com> <EEA9B9126DCC3D4EAE127F122BD926BE08832870@de01exm70.ds.mot.com> <013b01cc18ff$1ada6830$508f3890$%park@samsung.com> <00df01cc196b$3df1beb0$b9d53c10$@com>
- Thread-index: AcwWgY85bdmrpkcwR/Gn6F8iep7MOgAcyy/QAAP5PEAAfpgcgAAbCQ5AAAFCoEA=
- Thread-topic: [nwg] RE: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
Mauricio et al:
I am in full support of the proposed allocation.
Peretz Feder
Director, Alcatel-Lucent
At this time we find ourselves with a mixed result between the in room sentiment at IETF 80 (which was negative to allocation) and the subsequent consensus poll (which was neutral/positive to allocation). As such, a final consensus poll is warranted to establish rough consensus in either direction.
Please respond to this email by May 24, 2011 with either a ‘yes’ (indicating allocation should occur) or a ‘no’ (indicating allocation should be denied). Please respond regardless of whether you commented at IETF 80 or to the below consensus poll.
Thanks,
Mauricio
From: [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:31 AM
To: 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org<mailto:'radiusext@ops.ietf.org>'
Subject: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request
During IETF 80 one of the agenda topics discussed was whether to approve a request received by IANA for allocation of additional NAS-port-type values relating to Wimax as described below
Type of Assignment :
Nas-Port-Type values as follows:
TBD for WIMAX-3GPP-PRIF: WiMAX Pre-Release 8 IWK Function
TBD for WIMAX-WIFI-IWK: WiMAX WIFI Interworking
TBD for WIMAX-SFF: Signaling Forwarding Function for LTE/3GPP2.
TBD for WIMAX-HA-LMA: WiMAX HA and or LMA function.
TBD for WIMAX-DHCP : WIMAX DCHP service
TBD for WIMAX- LBS : WiMAX location based service
TBD for WIMAX-WVS : WiMAX voice service
The snippet of meeting notes relating to this topic are show below:
---- <meeting note snippet begin>---------------------------
Request for registration for NAS-port-type. Under 3575, falls under expert review. This request is for NAS-port-type relating to WiMax
- Stefan comments that there’s already type for WiFi so not sure why another one is needed, just one.
- Klaas comments that agrees with Stefan’s comments.
- Nancy comments that looking at the current assignment is that there is only 1 allocation per mode.
- Bernard takes the general comment of only allocating one as the response to take back to the request. Given consensus here, will verify that opinion in the reflector.
---- <meeting note snippet end>---------------------------
The sentiment in the room was clearly against approving this IANA request and at this time we would like to confirm this on the mailing list.
Please respond to this email and state whether you are in favor or against approving this IANA request.
Thanks,
MS
_____
This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
--- End Message ---