Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Assessment Presentation at SLC
"James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> Mon, 17 December 2001 18:13 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 NAA13894 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:13:12 -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 NAA13713; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:00:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA13667 for <seamoby@ns.ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:00:29 -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 NAA13572 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:00:27 -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 fBHHxsJ08995; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:59:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <007401c18724$68b50230$7e6015ac@T23KEMPF>
From: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
To: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se>, 'Behcet Sarikaya' <behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com>, seamoby@ietf.org
References: <4DA6EA82906FD511BE2F00508BCF053801C4C131@Esealnt861.al.sw.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Assessment Presentation at SLC
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:58:18 -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
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
Hesham, The Mobile IP group has yet to complete requirements for LMM, much less select a protocol. Should the Mobile IP group decide ultimately to select an LMM solution other than HMIPv6, it would make taking a Seamoby protocol based on HMIPv6 to proposed standard much more difficult. In addition, one of the primary requirements behind all Seamoby protocols is independence of mobility protocol. A paging protocol explicitly based on Mobile IP, and Mobile IPv6 specifically, therefore does not satisfy this requirment. jak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se> To: "'Behcet Sarikaya'" <behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 2:25 AM Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Assessment Presentation at SLC > > access, as > > other WGs do), the two drafts: > > draft 1. draft-sarikaya-seamoby-mipv6hp-00.txt and > > draft 2. draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt > > were considered together because they were submitted by the > > same team and > > since draft-sarikaya-seamoby-mipv6hp-00.txt > > was based on hmipv6 both of them were eliminated, > > => I missed the early part of the meeting, but > was that a reason ?? ie, just because it's based on HMIPv6 ? > > 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
- RE: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Assessment Presenta… Hesham Soliman (ERA)
- Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Assessment Presenta… James Kempf