[Seamoby] Re: CAR Discovery Draft

Hesham,

Thanx for your comments. I will request that Govind make the appropriate
changes to the draft, and we will
submit an update prior sending it to the IESG.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se>
To: "'James Kempf'" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>; "Hesham Soliman (ERA)"
<hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se>; "'Trossen Dirk (NRC/Boston)'"
<Dirk.Trossen@nokia.com>; "Govind Krishnamurthi" <govs23@hotmail.com>;
<seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 7:55 AM
Subject: RE: CAR Discovery Draft

> James,
>
>   > It certainly would have been helpful if you had posted your
comments
>   > during the Last Call period.
>   > Last Call expired Jan. 4 on this document. I don't believe
>   > comments sent
>   > in after
>   > Last Call necessarily need to be accommodated, but, if
>   > these are simple
>   > editorial changes that can be
>   >  resolved in the next day or two, then I think we can
>   > accommodate them.
>   > However, I do not want to get into a
>   >  long discussion about requirements prior to releasing the problem
>   > statement.
>
> => The requirements discussion is seaprate from my
> comments on the problem statement. I would have liked
> to send them earlier too, but as I said it's a very
> common holiday period. Perhaps something to think about
> with future last calls.
>
>   >
>   > > => To me the following text from the draft suggests
>   > > that the AR knows ALL GAARs. I think that's unrealistic.
>   > >
>   > >   4.1 Anticipated CAR Discovery
>   > >
>   > >    In this approach, an AR currently serving the MN identifies
all
>   > CARs
>   > >    for the MN's handoff, at some point prior to handoff.
>   > >
>   >
>   > How about:
>   >
>   >     In this approach, an AR currently serving the MN
>   > identifies some set
>   > of
>   >     suitable CARs for the MN's handoff, at some point prior
>   > to handoff.
>
> => Fine with me
>   >
>   > If this text is unsatisfactory, please feel free to propose an
>   > alternative.
>   >
>   > > => anticipation should not be associated with the
>   > > case where the MN does not signal, you can have
>   > > anticipation when the MN signals also. Therefore
>   > > associating 'anticipation' with a certain model
>   > > where the MN does not signal, does not seem right.
>   > >
>   > > I'm referring to the title of ch 4.1
>   > >
>   >
>   > One of the problems with not having a consistent set
>   > of terminology for wireless networking in the IETF
>   > is that it becomes difficult to find a word that describes
>   > the concept you are trying to get at without impinging
>   > on what somebody else thinks a particular word
>   > means. I believe this is the case here. The "anticipated"
>   > here has nothing to do with "anticipated handover."
>   > Here, the AR is anticipating the need for CARs
>   > by performing discovery prior to the MN needing
>   > them.
>
> => Then it should be explicitly stated that the
> anticipation is 'AR-based'. Simply saying
> 'anticipation' in isolation and not mentioning
> this term in ch 4.2 is misleading because it associates
> 'anticipation' with a certain mechanism.
>
>   > Perhaps another word would be suitable? Please
>   > feel free to suggest one. Perhaps "router based"?
>
> => Exactly, I think 'access router- based' is more
> appropriate.
>
> Hesham
>
>   >
>   >             jak
>   >
>

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