Re: [Seamoby] framework for DMHA protocol

Hello,

Having a design team framework document is ok, currently the draft-renker
gives a multitude of choices to do a protocol. Ultimately we'll need something
simple and unambiguous. This would need strong modification to become a
real protocol from its current format which looks more like an architecture
with candidate modes for several functionalities.

I second that the requirement for protocol independence is important.
Hence, I suggest structuring the document in a way that decouples the protocol
from all other protocols (MIPv6 etc. included) so much that they do not need
ideally to be even refered to at all. If needed, there should be appendices
describing interaction but only in the case it is essential for the
working of the protocol in some mode etc. Interdependences should be
minimized.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New year all,

-Jari

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 06:45:59PM +0100, Marco Liebsch wrote:
> Dear all,
> I will try to structure a draft framework, which is then for discussion
> on the list, taking first the protocol as it is now and moving the
> Mobile IPv6 options to be considered for MIP optimization purposes into
> the Annex (open). We have to think about extensions and address the
> parts the assessment draft refers to. Until first framework is
> available, please be referred to the current version of the base-line
> concept draft-renker-paging-ipv6-01.txt and also think of issues to be
> clarifed with respect to what is already written. So we can address
> these issues and have enhancements in the first draft version, which
> could be submitted end of January, if the WG agrees and we proceed. What
> do you think?
> 
> I wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I will be back in
> the office around Jan, 10th.
> 
> Marco
>

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