Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:08:28 -0400

Rajeev, 

Please find inline comments. 

Regards,
Ajoy 

Yes. However, if you look back on the ML discussion prior to Paris 
meeting, we seem to have converged to having a protocol that defines the

handover information Request - Reply semantics. FMIP would use the 
message structure and option format in its PrRt* messages. I guess the 
IS in 802.21 is also interested in the handover information Request - 
Reply. So, perhaps it makes sense to define a single protocol (for 
handover information exchange).

Ajoy-> I am confused why FMIPv6 needs to define Information Service
protocol. I guess FMIPv6 was defined to take care of routing aspect of 
Fast Mobile/IP. CARD was deigned for Information Query Response and
Context Transfer protocol was defined to transfer context from one AR to
other. 

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: Eunsoo Shim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:21:55 -0400

> I guess FMIPv6 was defined to take care of routing aspect of 
Precisely.

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:31:13 -0700

Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 wrote:

> protocol. 

It does not.
It continues to use the PrRt* messages, perhaps with a harmonized 
message structure defined by the "handover information exchange" protocol.

-Rajeev