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