RE: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements

Dirk,

  > It's not quite clear to me what you propose. Do you want 
  > requirement 9,
  > i.e., the independence from the mobility mgt., to be 
  > removed or to be
  > changed
  > to a SHOULD requirement?

=> No, I was suggesting that the solution must 
   accomodate the existing mobility solutions. 
   This maybe as simple as having hooks in it, 
   but might also require more work. So simply stating
   that it MUST accomodate the existing mobility 
   solutions, to me, means that when used with MIP/MANET,
   everything should work without losing any of the
   existing features in MIP or MANET protocols. 

   I hope this is clearer, you might want to change
   'accomodate' to a better word, I don't mean 
   this to be taken literally.

  > 
  > My concern regarding Phil's comment was that he mentioned specific
  > methods to be mandatory in the final solution. I don't think it's a 
  > good idea to define specific methods as requirements since they
  > restrict the solution space. That was simply my comment. 
  > 

=> I agree that the requirements should not mandate a 
certain way of solving the problem. So when I said 
I agree with Phil, I meant the first part of his comment, 
without actually specifying 'how to do it'.
Sorry for not making this clear.

  > Regards,
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Dirk
  > > -----Original Message-----
  > > From: ext Hesham Soliman (ERA) 
[mailto:hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:34 AM
> To: Trossen Dirk (NRC/Boston); ext Phillip Neumiller; Govind
> Krishnamurthi; seamoby@ietf.org
> Cc: Krishnamurthi Govind (NRC/Boston)
> Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements
> 
> 
>   > > 
>   > > 2).  It MUST provide a query (client server) and/or a post 
>   > > (publish and
>   > >      subscribe) method to allow other mobility protocols like 
>   > > those being
>   > >      worked on in the MIP and MANET WGs to cooperate with 
>   > > this protocol.
>   > 
>   > Requirement 9 of the current list already states the 
>   > independence of any
>   > mobility management protocol. Why do you want to enforce specific
>   > methods that have to be provided to ensure (from your 
> point of view)
>   > said independence? 
>   > In conclusion, I think said requirement 9 is sufficient 
>   > since it leave
>   > more freedom for the actual solution.
> 
> => I think it's important to be realistic, there is a 
> difference between designing it _for_ MIP and MANET, 
> and designing it to allow usage _with_ MIP and MANET. 
> The latter is a minimum requirement IMO. Ignoring that
> there are mobility protocols that should be used 
> with the final solution, when the entire problem 
> is mostly relevant to mobile devices, doesn't seem
> realistic to me.
> 
> So I agree with Phil's comment.
> 
> Hesham
>   > 
>   > Regards,
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > Dirk
>   > 
>   > _______________________________________________
>   > 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