RE: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements

"Trossen Dirk (NRC/Boston)" <Dirk.Trossen@nokia.com> Fri, 11 January 2002 16:56 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21385 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:56:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA06128; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:45:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA06090 for <seamoby@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:45:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mgw-dax2.ext.nokia.com (mgw-dax2.ext.nokia.com [63.78.179.217]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21071 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:45:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from davir04nok.americas.nokia.com (davir04nok.americas.nokia.com [172.18.242.87]) by mgw-dax2.ext.nokia.com (Switch-2.1.0/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id g0BGktQ11758 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:46:55 -0600 (CST)
Received: from daebh001.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by davir04nok.americas.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id <T58618f991fac12f2570d5@davir04nok.americas.nokia.com>; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:45:22 -0600
Received: from bsebe001.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.19.160.13]) by daebh001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:45:22 -0600
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:45:21 -0500
Message-ID: <DC504E9C3384054C8506D3E6BB01246008D55B@bsebe001.NOE.Nokia.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0
Thread-Topic: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements
Thread-Index: AcGau63HRZH/ZwasEdaxMgAIx6TWeAAAvYrQ
From: "Trossen Dirk (NRC/Boston)" <Dirk.Trossen@nokia.com>
To: "'ext Hesham Soliman (ERA)'" <hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se>, Phillip Neumiller <PNeumiller@meshnetworks.com>, Govind Krishnamurthi <govs23@hotmail.com>, seamoby@ietf.org
Cc: "Krishnamurthi Govind (NRC/Boston)" <Govind.Krishnamurthi@nokia.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jan 2002 16:45:22.0720 (UTC) FILETIME=[5CAA9A00:01C19ABF]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id LAA06091
Sender: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting <seamoby.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: seamoby@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Phil and Hesham,

some comments:
- requirements shouldn't mandate certain solutions. What Phil proposed
was to make certain solutions mandatory. This is not about being vague
or not. This is retricting the solutions (maybe for a certain reason).

- making the 'usage' or 'accomodation' of mobility management features
a MUST restricts the solution space, too. Is a solution prohibited, only

because it does not rely on certain mobility management features, even
if
the solution might be easier?

Regards,



Dirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Hesham Soliman (ERA) [mailto:hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:18 AM
> To: Phillip Neumiller; Hesham Soliman (ERA); Trossen Dirk 
> (NRC/Boston);
> Govind Krishnamurthi; seamoby@ietf.org
> Cc: Krishnamurthi Govind (NRC/Boston)
> Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements
> 
> 
> Phil,
> 
>   > We seem to dance around in abstract space a lot in this WG. 
> 
> => Really ! :)
> 
>   >  Isn't it time
>   > to get down to brass tacks?  MIP has an implied 
>   > architecture and it is not
>   > going away.  Neither are many of the MANET protocols.  What 
>   > ever happened
>   > to the "running code" idea anyway?  I don't see why we 
> have to be so
>   > very vague (which is occuring strictly to be pedantic about 
>   > requirement-
>   > speak).  There is an old adage that states if its not 
>   > "testable" its not
>   > a requirement.  
> 
> => I agree, we should have clear and 'easy to test'
> requirements. I was only explaining in generic terms
> that requirements should not mandate solutions. In  this
> particular case, all I care about is that no optimisations
> or features of existing MIP/MANET stuff is lost.
> I don't care how it's done.
> 
> Hesham
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> Seamoby@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
> 

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby