RE: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements



Hello Hesham,
>Hi Govind,
>
>Sure you could use CAR without any mobility
>management, but I think that it is reasonable
>to assume that CAR will also be very useful for
>MNs.
----> I believe CAR discovery is for mobility and
therefore for MNs. So we have no disagreement here :).
What I said was that it may be possible for CAR discovery
to happen without any help from underlying mobility management protocols.

If you agree with that, then it would sense
>to make sure that it certainly works smoothly
>with existing solutions, that will most likely
>be around for a long time.
>
----> Agreed again and I think we are saying the same thing,
except that there seems to be confusion about how we put
it into words. IMO, working independently implies that
it does not depend on or impede any mobility management protocols.

>Again, I' not suggesting we integrate CAR into
>MIP, just make sure they work well together.
>
>Hesham
Regards,
Govind.
>
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: Govind Krishnamurthi [mailto:govs23@hotmail.com]
>   > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 5:49 PM
>   > To: hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se
>   > Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements
>   >
>   >
>   > Hello Hesham,
>   > Just for clarification. Is there an inherent assumption in your
>   > statement that CAR discovery will need assistance from
>   > mobility management
>   > protocols. My understanding is that in Seamoby we don't
>   > restrict only to MIP. Also by making it independent of
>   > mobility management
>   > protocols  we clearly don't affect any of the features of
>   > the underlying
>   > mobility management protocol is that not? Or am I missing
>   > something here.
>   > -Govind.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > >
>   > >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
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > _________________________________________________________________
>   > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
>   > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>   >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seamoby mailing list
>Seamoby@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


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