Re: [Seamoby] Paging Triggers

Hi Jim,
  I am afraid your comments on paging triggers could be misunderstood as if
Seamoby WG chairs are against defining paging triggers.
  You know what Raj Patil (MIP WG) said in a recent mail:
>L2 triggers will not be discussed in the MIP WG meeting at SLC. While we
>do
>realize the importance of L2 triggers in enabling low-latency (MIPv4)
>and fast
>handoff (MIPv6), it is still undetermined as to in what WG or area of
>the IETF
>to do work related to this.
which I interpret as saying that MIP WG is supportive of  trigger work.
  If you are against I have a feeling that you have to make your case why
you are for defining triggers for low latency and fast handoff and not for
paging.

Regards,

James Kempf wrote:

> Bechet,
>
> The Wireless Directorate is still discussing what to do about L2
> triggers. Based on feedback from
> the Directorate, I made a decision not to pursue discussing a joint
> draft on paging and handover triggers
> with the other authors of the handover trigger draft. There has been no
> decision about how
> to continue the L2 triggers work in the Wireless Directorate yet, but
> many people have expressed
> the opinion that a BOF at IETF 53 is the right approach. If that
> approach appeals to the
> Area Directors, then you will have the opportunity to present your work
> there, as will we with the
> handover triggers.

--
Behcet

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