Re: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements

Hi Madjid,

Indeed, this requirement deals with one of the possible inputs in the CAR
discovery. Since network capabilities are covered already in the
requirements
(capability exchange), I wanted to put MN's requirements in there. Whether
the involved entities are already aware of these or not is a matter of the
solution,
but most likely they are.

Regards,

Dirk

----- Original Message -----
From: "ext Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1" <Madjid.Nakhjiri@motorola.com>
To: <Dirk.Trossen@nokia.com>; "Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1"
<Madjid.Nakhjiri@motorola.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 5:57 PM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements

> Hi Dirk,
>
> I think it is sufficient to point out that the CAR disc protocol
> needs to provide means of signaling the necessary input
> for the selection process, including network capabilities
> and MN's preferences (profile).
> My point was that:
> Since the selection process is either done by MN or oldAR
> in the old network, no external signaling is necessary, because
> they are both aware of MN's preferences, unless CAR
> is happening at a different network entity at the old network.
> And I don't think CAR is performed at the target network either,
> do you?
>
> Regards,
> Madjid
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dirk.Trossen@nokia.com [mailto:Dirk.Trossen@nokia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:51 AM
> To: Madjid Nakhjiri; seamoby@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements
>
>
> Hi Madjid,
>
> I'm not saying that MN's requirements have to be spelled out again.
> 'Means to express the requirements' includes some mechanisms to
> define these requirements somehow and the means that they can be used
> as an input to the CAR discovery protocol. It is certainly possible that
> the first part is done by currently existing protocols, but the
> requirement merely states that the means are mandatory for the
> CAR discovery solution, otherwise it cannot fulfil its task.
>
> Maybe, here's some confusion in general sometimes that the requirements
> always mandate NEW functionality. This is not the case. The requirements
> merely describe the functionality that is needed to do the job. Whether
> or not this will be done in the final proposal by existing protocols,
> modifications to existing ones, or new mechanisms is out of the scope
> of the requirements.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 [mailto:Madjid.Nakhjiri@motorola.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:59 AM
> To: Trossen Dirk (NRC/Boston); seamoby@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements
>
>
> Sorry for the late response,
>
> isn't MN's requirement spelled out in MN's user profile or
> SLA or something else recorded in the policy server of the
> MN's network? why does the MN has to express them again.
> if the new network needs it (I don't know why it would in
> a CAR selection), then it can get it from old network, if the
> old network needs, it gets it from policy server.
> I think what this should concentrate on is:
>
> CAR discovery protocol MUST provide means for signaling
> parameters needed for a TAR selection mechanims (regardless
> of whether it is done at MN or at AR).
>
> I know that the selection process is out of scope, but providing
> input for it should be in scope. signaling MN's requirements for
> service is a different issue.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Madjid
>
>
> "3.xx Providing MN's requirement for Determination of CARs
>
> The fundamental task of CAR discovery is to determine candidate
> access routers (from the set of GAARs) that meet MN's requirements,
> if known at the time of handoff. A CAR discovery protocol MUST
> determine a set of CARs that meet MN's requirements. For this,
> a CAR discovery protocol MUST provide means for the MN to express
> these requirements."
>

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