Subject: RE: [Seamoby] updated dyCARD draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:52:24 -0500

Hi James:

See comments below:

-----Original Message-----
From: ext James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 3:21 PM
To: Robert Chalmers
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] updated dyCARD draft

> On a side note, I agree with you that we should pobably separate the
> AR-MN signalling from the AR-AR or AR-server signalling. Whether or not
> the WG wants to standardize mutiple back-end schemes (static,
> server-based, learning-based), I don't know.
>

I think concentrating on the back-end is probably better. The front end has lots
of overlap with FMIP. The DT draft has basically two front end protocols, one
with and one without FMIP. I think we need only one. Of course, we must be sure
that the front end provides what the back end needs.

That's my opinion.

Hemant -> We had run this issue by Eric and the current design has been approved by him. The current design works with FMIP as well as without. Shall we close this issue now, or you think this is still open.

> Finally, I definitely agree with you that we need some input from people
> who don't have invested interest in either approach. Please don't take
> this the wrong way, but are you invested in either approach? It seems

No. Regardless of who has IPR on what. But I am invested in getting a
well-integrated realtime handover protocol suite. As WG chair (and, further, IAB
member), I need to make sure the design changes we are making in local link
protocols and router protocols integrate well with the existing Internet, and
provide the functionality required. And I need to advise the IESG about how I
think we can best get there.

Like I said in another posting, the DT draft is just a suggestion. The WG has
ultimate responsiblity for the result.

> that some of the dyHardness might stem from the perception that you
> might or the DT in general might be invested. Moreover, while the DT was
> hashing out which direction they would take, we (the dyCARD team)
> received a lot of questions concerning how to secure the protocol. It
> was my impression that the the DT eventually went towards the
> server-based solution because we couldn't guarantee absolutely that the
> caches could not be contaminated with non-GAAR entries (this is not the
> same as bad AR-AP mapping - that we can guarantee). With the recent
> discussion, though, these problems seem to have taken a back seat. Now,
> it seems that malicious MNs aren't that big of a deal, cache
> contamination is not a big issue.
>

My view is that preventing false information from getting to the MN is the
absolute baseline. Any protocol that doesn't supply this is broken. Further than
that, we need to discuss how accurate the wireless connectivity information
should be in the absence of full geographical information, and weigh that
against the cost in terms of infrastructure and inter-router signaling. Pat and
I have asked Eunsoo to discuss this topic and problems with the server approach
at the meeting. Ajoy and Marco's talk will discuss how the scope-id and server
approach work.

> Maybe, the next step is to start talking about what properties would
> make for the best protocol, not what's wrong with one approach or the other.
>

Yes,exactly.

            jak

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:20:53 -0800

> Hemant -> We had run this issue by Eric and the current design has been
approved by him. The current design works with FMIP as well as without. Shall we
close this issue now, or you think this is still open.

I think it is still open re. NSIIM.

        jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:20:53 -0800

jak