IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Geib, Ruediger" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com> Mon, 15 July 2002 07:40 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA15180 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 03:40:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA05279; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 03:35:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA05229 for <seamoby@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 03:35:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail1.telekom.de (mail1.telekom.de [62.225.183.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA15021; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 03:34:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from g8pbr.blf01.telekom.de by G8SBV.dmz.telekom.de with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:33:51 +0200
Received: by G8PBR.blf01.telekom.de with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <38ZSFW8J>; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:34:26 +0200
Message-Id: <DFD875E85664D3118FA6080006277DE70362CAF2@U8PN2.blf01.telekom.de>
From: "Geib, Ruediger" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com>
To: john.loughney@nokia.com
Cc: seamoby@ietf.org, nsis@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] RE: [NSIS] Re: draft-westphal-nsis-qos-mobileip-00. txt
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:34:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id DAA05232
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi John,

>>> The one step we could take (but not the one that was 
>>> suggested) would be to investigate into ensuring 
>>> some commonality between the formats for 
>>> encapsulating the respective data chunks (i.e. 
>>> context/NSIS parameters). Or at least, provide 
>>> for NSIS to carry CT data chunks and visa versa.

> What I suggest is that NSIS and CT progress, and since there
> is some overlap in the interest of both groups, we can
> try to ensure that whatever solutions we work on do not
> cause trouble for the different working groups.  However,
> I don't support tightly coupling the solutions.  A much
> better way would be that after CT & NSIS work is well
> along, someone could make an applicability document of
> combining both NSIS & CT  into a solution for 
> particular deployments.

Both points completely represent my expectations on a loose
but useful cooperation of NSIS and SEAMOBY. 

Regards, Rüdiger

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

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status