[Seamoby] Revision of car discovery issues draft requested

Allison Mankin <mankin@isi.edu> Tue, 02 April 2002 06:17 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA29275 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 01:17:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA07429; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 00:58:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA07402 for <seamoby@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 00:58:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from minotaur.nge.isi.edu (minotaur.nge.isi.edu []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28808 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 00:58:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from minotaur (mankin@localhost) by minotaur.nge.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g325weq19161; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 00:58:40 -0500
Message-Id: <200204020558.g325weq19161@minotaur.nge.isi.edu>
To: kempf@docomolabsusa-com, hemant.chaskar@nokia.com, dirk.trossen@nokia.com, govind.krishnamurthi@nokia.com
Cc: seamoby@ietf.org
Reply-To: mankin@isi.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 1.7)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 00:58:40 -0500
From: Allison Mankin <mankin@isi.edu>
Subject: [Seamoby] Revision of car discovery issues draft requested
Sender: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting <seamoby.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: seamoby@ietf.org

Jim, Pat,

You asked for publication of draft-ietf-seamoby-cardiscovery-issues-02.txt.

An initial review raised a couple of concerns that I think should be
addressed before full IESG review:

1. There is only a tiny mention of inter-technology handoff (in 5.2), but
   enabling this is a seamoby charter goal.  As Steve Deering
   advised during the MN meeting, this could even be CAR discovery when
   going from wired to wireless...There could be a fifth scenario of
   a technology change - going from a crowded 802.11b to an uncongested
   802.11a is another thought here.

2. The references need to be split into normative and informative.  If
   the draft must (as it now reads) be normatively dependent on the fast
   handoff drafts from mobileip, it will have to await their publication.

3. The points in section 7 should be prefaced with a comment on their
   sketchiness - they are a too brief treatment.  

   It is not clear that any treatment of solutions belongs in this draft.


Grammar is shaky in "The following sections describe the specific issues in the CAR
discovery, may it be done in anticipated, dynamic or hybrid way."

Seamoby mailing list