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

James,

As much as I like to see a clean interaction between CT and NSIS,
I don't see any reason why CT needs to play the role of NSIS optimization,
not to forget the NSIS didn't even exist back then.

CT is simply a tool you need in your seamless mobility toolbox, it
eventually
involved into a container carrying any context you like (even non-IP
context, as
long as it is feasible). The profile types, that Rajeev mentioned is aligned
with
this line of thinking.

I seriously advise against going back and change CT
requirements for the sake of optimizing NSIS, which at this point we don't
know
what it is. A couple of months from now, we have to revise CT because of a
security
related protocol, later for something else.....

The later we wait for CT standardization, the more home brewed versions are
going to pop up, just like Behcet mentioned.

My 1.5 cents (lower dollars)

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@docomolabs-usa.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 4:37 PM
To: Rajeev Koodli; Hemant.Chaskar@nokia.com
Cc: gkenward@nortelnetworks.com; seamoby@ietf.org; nsis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] RE: [NSIS] Re:
draft-westphal-nsis-qos-mobileip-00.txt

> CT is an optimization to avoid signaling and the associated overheads, and
maintain
> desirable transport (RTP/TCP)performance. A historical note: CT was not
designed
> to be an optimization for NSIS.
>

Do you mean that the requirements weren't so designed? Because, to my
knowledge, the WG has not yet settled on a design. We are
currently awaiting IESG feedback on our requirements. The problem statement
was just approved by the IESG.

            jak

_______________________________________________
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