Re: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG

I think what the IESG wants to see is a statement like this.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Kenward" <gkenward@nortelnetworks.com>
To: "'Vijay Devarapalli'" <vijayd@iprg.nokia.com>; "James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
Cc: <seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG

> I agree with Vijay and Charlie on the response to this question.
> It may still be useful to add this response to the requirements,
> explicitly stating that the receiving AR *may* change the received
> context for its own use, but the nature of these changes, and how
> they are effected are not part of the context transfer solution.
> 
> Gary
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:vijayd@iprg.nokia.com]
> > Sent: July 9, 2002 16:01
> > To: James Kempf
> > Cc: seamoby@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG
> > 
> > 
> > hi Jim,
> > 
> > James Kempf wrote:
> > 
> > > 2) The requirements say nothing about context which must be 
> > modified on the new router in order to be useful. An example is ROHC
> > > context when the mobile obtains a new care of address. How 
> > would the CT protocol handle this?
> > 
> > the context transfer protocol should not worry about this at all.
> > it is specific to each feature. for ROHC, the IP addresses have
> > to be changed. for IPsec Security Associations, the SPIs maybe
> > need to be changed in addition to the IP addresses.
> > 
> > regards
> > Vijay
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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