Re: [Seamoby] RE: [NSIS] Re: draft-westphal-nsis-qos-mobileip-00. txt

That is more or less what I had in mind. The base CT protocol is independent of the particular applications in any event.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <john.loughney@nokia.com>
To: <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
Cc: <seamoby@ietf.org>; <nsis@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 3:40 AM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] RE: [NSIS] Re: draft-westphal-nsis-qos-mobileip-00. txt

> Hi James,
> 
> > > The one step we could take (but not the one that was 
> > suggested) would 
> > > be to investigate into ensuring some commonality between 
> > the formats for
> > > encapsulating the respective data chunks (i.e. context/NSIS 
> > parameters). 
> > > Or at least, provide for NSIS to carry CT data chunks and 
> > visa versa.
> > > 
> > 
> > Right, that is in fact the kind of thing I had in mind. If 
> > you don't want to call it QoS context, call it "NSIS context".
> 
> Just as an FYI, some folks are interest in looking into using
> NSIS for various things, like QoS, NAT, & firewall traversal,
> and so forth.  For these cases, what parameters NSIS signals
> are very much service/application specific.  This is also
> true with regards to Context Transfer.  
> 
> What I suggest is that NSIS and CT progress, and since there
> is some overlap in the interest of both groups, we can
> try to ensure that whatever solutions we work on do not
> cause trouble for the different working groups.  However,
> I don't support tightly coupling the solutions.  A much
> better way would be that after CT & NSIS work is well
> along, someone could make an applicability document of
> combining both NSIS & CT  into a solution for 
> particular deployments.
> 
> br,
> John
> 

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