RE: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements

  > some comments:
  > - requirements shouldn't mandate certain solutions. What 
  > Phil proposed
  > was to make certain solutions mandatory. This is not about 
  > being vague
  > or not. This is retricting the solutions (maybe for a 
  > certain reason).
  > 
  > - making the 'usage' or 'accomodation' of mobility 
  > management features
  > a MUST restricts the solution space, too. Is a solution 
  > prohibited, only
  > 
  > because it does not rely on certain mobility management 
  > features, even
  > if
  > the solution might be easier?

=> If we're designing things to be used, then yes
you have to be compatible with existing (very related)
protocols. What's the point of this work if it breaks
mobility management as we know it today ? 
This should not be seen as a pure research exercise
IMO, we need to design useable products. 

I'm not ruling out any new features or trying to make
it work with MIP only, I'm saying don't break the 
existing solutions. 

I think this is a pretty straight forward request
and we shouldn't dwell on it too much

Hesham

  > 
  > Regards,
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Dirk
  > 
  > > -----Original Message-----
  > > From: ext Hesham Soliman (ERA) 
[mailto:hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:18 AM
> To: Phillip Neumiller; Hesham Soliman (ERA); Trossen Dirk 
> (NRC/Boston);
> Govind Krishnamurthi; seamoby@ietf.org
> Cc: Krishnamurthi Govind (NRC/Boston)
> Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements
> 
> 
> Phil,
> 
>   > We seem to dance around in abstract space a lot in this WG. 
> 
> => Really ! :)
> 
>   >  Isn't it time
>   > to get down to brass tacks?  MIP has an implied 
>   > architecture and it is not
>   > going away.  Neither are many of the MANET protocols.  What 
>   > ever happened
>   > to the "running code" idea anyway?  I don't see why we 
> have to be so
>   > very vague (which is occuring strictly to be pedantic about 
>   > requirement-
>   > speak).  There is an old adage that states if its not 
>   > "testable" its not
>   > a requirement.  
> 
> => I agree, we should have clear and 'easy to test'
> requirements. I was only explaining in generic terms
> that requirements should not mandate solutions. In  this
> particular case, all I care about is that no optimisations
> or features of existing MIP/MANET stuff is lost.
> I don't care how it's done.
> 
> Hesham
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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