[Seamoby] CT Requirements Draft
"James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> Fri, 28 December 2001 16:57 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 LAA09537 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 11:57:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA27016; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 11:37:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26985 for <seamoby@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 11:37:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from docomolabs-usa.com (fridge.docomo-usa.com [216.98.102.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09416 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 11:37:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from T23KEMPF (dhcp126.docomo-usa.com [172.21.96.126]) by docomolabs-usa.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id fBSGasS17086 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 08:36:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <001401c18fbd$a2d56710$7e6015ac@T23KEMPF>
From: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
To: seamoby@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 08:35:18 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Draft
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: 7bit
> Last call is just about to expire on the CT requirements > draft, if it hasn't already. I have only three > comments: > > 1) Use of the term "microflow" > This term generated comment from the IESG in > the CT problem statement draft. I think it might > be worthwhile substituting another term. I > think just the term "flow" should be sufficient. > > 2) Section 5.2 > I think this section should be removed since > I believe there has been no comment > from our AD on this. > > 3) What happens when CT fails? > There are no requirements currently about > what to do when CT fails. By "fails" > I mean that the target AR is unable > to interpret the transferred context. > > There are some other minor points that > I think could use work, but I don't > think they are worthwhile holding > up the draft. > > jak > > _______________________________________________ Seamoby mailing list Seamoby@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
- [Seamoby] CT Requirements Draft James Kempf