Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Confirmation of Concensus on Completing Seamoby Work

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:11:18 +0200

James,

> I think I would like to see a precise definition of "frameworky".

So would I!  I think by calling something 'frameworky' there is an implication
of something a bit fuzzy involved.

That being said, what I would like to do is get the basic protocol
mechanisms (messages, data types, parameters, etc.) defined and
then have an appendix where we map the protocol to certain mobility
signaling protocols, like FMIP.  This would give an opportunity for
others to 'map' the CTP to their particular needs, in future 
documents.

> As for FMIP applicability, putting it in an appendix to illustrate how the
> protocol would apply to FMIP is a good idea.

agreed.

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:50:58 -0800

> of something a bit fuzzy involved.

Seamoby is now beyond the point where fuzzy is acceptable. We need a precise
definition, so that the design team can execute on defining the protocol in the
next three to four months, so that we can close the working group by fall.

> others to 'map' the CTP to their particular needs, in future

This is an acceptable beginning. Pat and I will be working with the ADs over the
next week or so to come up with a proposed charter revision that defines exactly
what will be in the protocol documents, and what the schedule is for delivering
them, based on the concensus established in SFO. When we have agreement, we will
be posting the new charter to the mailing list.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:50:58 -0800

jak