Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Draft or Proposed?

From: Qiang Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:45:55 -0500

I suspect FA must implement the Reverse Tunneling, else instead of many
existing implementations' breaking, the support to Private Address and
Security Tunnel will be defeat...

Charlie gave some opinion on the "7 seconds", if I understand it correct, it
is actually very flexible and up to the applicability.

Best Regards,

Qiang
>I would also support adding reverse tunneling (mandatory for HAs,
>SHOULD for FAs) and support for private addresses to this version of
>the draft.  It would be nice if FA support could be made a MUST but I
>see the point about many existing implementations breaking; I am just
>a little worried that vendors might ignore the SHOULD.
>
>There was some discussion on the "7 second question" that I don't
>think was fully resolved.  My feeling is that a hard-coded 7 seconds
>is too strict.  I can imagine carrier deployment scenarios (which
>might be very different in scale from the testbeds used so far) in
>which the operator wants to tune this number.  If it is set too high
>then outstanding requests may eat up too much memory.  Too low, and
>some otherwise good registrations would be dropped.  Could we change
>this to a tunable parameter, with 7 seconds as a default?
>
>-Pete
>
>
>Charles Perkins <[email-masked]> (CP) writes:
>
>CP> Hello,
>CP> During the recent Mobile IP working group meeting, there was a lot
>CP> of discussion about whether the revised version of RFC 2002 should
>CP> be considered as a new Proposed Standard, or instead whether the
>CP> revised specification should be subject to further (extensive) revision
>CP> along the way for consideration of Mobile IP as a Draft Standard.
>
>CP> If we make the revised specification into a new Proposed Standard,
>CP> it will push out consideration of Mobile IP as a Draft Standard to
>CP> a date at least 6 months from now.  Furthermore, additional revisions
>CP> will be needed to the document before it can be considered as a
>CP> Draft Standard.
>
>CP> If the specification is revised for consideration as Draft Standard
>CP> without going to Proposed, then the additional revisions will cause
>CP> the current document to be radically different than it is today.
>
>CP> My guess is that Mobile IP is still at least 9 months from going to
>CP> Draft Standard.  If an improved specification is needed before that
>CP> time, we should cycle at Proposed.
>
>CP> Regards,
>CP> Charlie P.
>
>

-Qiang

1100 Warnings!
--Line 100000: 3 cokes shut down your immune system for 24 hours, so stay
away from sodas!