[Seamoby] Difficulty of Achieving Precision on Certain Requiremnts

"James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> Sat, 20 July 2002 01:07 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21199 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 21:07:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA13104; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 21:05:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA13073 for <seamoby@ns.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 21:05:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fridge.docomolabs-usa.com (fwuser@key1.docomolabs-usa.com [216.98.102.225]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21166 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 21:04:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <00db01c22f89$4a972680$0f6015ac@T23KEMPF>
From: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
To: Gary Kenward <gkenward@nortelnetworks.com>, Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <Madjid.Nakhjiri@motorola.com>, seamoby@ietf.org
References: <9FBD322B7824D511B36900508BF93C9C01AA4C46@zcard031.ca.nortel.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:03:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Seamoby] Difficulty of Achieving Precision on Certain Requiremnts
Sender: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting <seamoby.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: seamoby@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gary,

> So you are proposing now that there are also feature specific
> CT protocols? If this is true, and we follow your argument,
> the we need to revisit all the attributes stated for CT: reliability,
> timeliness, etc., etc. to determine what capabilities should be
> common, and what capabilities should be feature specific.
>

Do you really think this is necessary? I just looked through the requirements
and they all looked pretty general to me.
If you think there are some specific requirements that would need updating,
please post suggested modifications to the list. Best would be a separate thread
per requirement, so that people can follow.

>  As far as updates go, I think it is a common capability.
>

Others don't agree, and they have examples which are convincing, such as header
compression transfer (this one came up in coversations with the IESG this week).

I was not involved in the initial discusssions on CT so I do not have the
history on it. But I also don't have a lot invested in a particular outcome. I
would like the WG to achieve concensus on a set of requirements that are
specific enough to pass IESG muster, so that we can procced on to actually
designing the protocol. My observation, over the last couple weeks of mailing
list traffic and talking to some people involved, is that the requirements are
not sufficiently crisp in places where people have very different ideas about
what types of feature contexts they want to transfer. These include:

1) Update allowed v.s. prohibited.

2) Tight synchronization with external events v.s. no synchronization.

3) What transport to use.

Trying to specify requirements in these areas for a general context transfer
protocol when people have legitimate but very different notions of what they
want to use the protocol for that would result in very different feature
specific requirements can't succeed.

In a separate thread, I will propose a new section that specifies requirements
on specifications for individual feature contexts. Note that this proposal will
not contain requirements on the feature contexts themselves, but only on their
specifications. These will address the issues above.

            jak




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