Re: [Seamoby] Terminology Draft Needed

	Hi,

	as I am the editor of the terminology draft, I would like to
continue the work me and my colleagues started a year ago (yes, the
terminology draft is today 1 year and 6 days old). Since the document is
already 28 pages long, I would rather add only a bare minimal set of
security terminology, only the ones absolutely needed in
Seamoby/MIP/MANET---a full security terminology would belong to another
WG.

	Second, the pointer Charlie gave is false. It is the old version
from summer, although it somehow has the "03" in the name... hmm... A new
version has been on the IETF draft repository since November. This is the
right version to discuss:

        Title           : Mobility Related Terminology
        Author(s)       : J. Manner et al.
        Filename        : draft-manner-seamoby-terms-03.txt
        Pages           : 28
        Date            : 28-Nov-01

There is a need for common definitions of terminology in the work to
be done around IP mobility. This memo defines terms for mobility
related terminology. It is intended as a living document for use by
the Seamoby working group, and especially for use in Seamoby drafts
and in WG discussions. Other working groups dealing with mobility may
also take advantage of this terminology

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manner-seamoby-terms-03.txt

	Regards,

	Jukka

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, James Kempf wrote:

> Phil,
>
> Pat and I were planning on sending a message out about this. I had asked
> Charlie for a pointer to
> the draft, you have helpfully supplied it (see below). Thanx.
>
> So we have one strong endorsement of adopting the Charlie's terminology
> draft as a WG item.
> Anyone else have strong feelings one way or the other on the issue?
>
>             jak
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Neumiller" <pneumiller@meshnetworks.com>
> To: <manet@itd.nrl.navy.mil>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:39 AM
> Subject: [Seamoby] Terminology Draft Needed
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have seen Charlie pull out the terminology draft at least a few
> times! :-)  Why can't
> > some WG chair in SeaMoby or MANET adopt it as WG draft?
> >
> > http://people.nokia.net/~charliep/txt/seamoby/term.txt
> >
> > It seems that many times arguments are over terminology.  IMO, I would
> like to
> > the SeaMoby WG become a bridge between MANET and MIP technologies,
> > especially with respect to AR discovery and CT.  This terminology
> draft would make
> > a very nice addition to the SeaMoby WG draft list.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

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