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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:52:54 +0200

James,

> With respect to CT, its a bit murkier, since the proposal is to directly use the
> FMIP handover signaling (as opposed to the prehandover signaling) as transport
> for the context and for the signaling from the Mobile Node to trigger the
> context transfer.
> One way we could finesse this is to define CT as an extension mechanism, then
> define in an appendix how it would apply to FMIP. This would avoid the problem
> of tying the base design to FMIP, while still ensuring it would work well with
> FMIP.

I thought that consensus was to define the CT protocol, but make
it a bit 'frameworky' and provide an appendix with FMIP applicability.
As FMIP is still a moving target, I think this is the best way to go,
especially as others have expressed interest in CTP for other
handoff  / mobility solutions.

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:20:32 -0700

John,

> handoff  / mobility solutions.

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

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

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:20:32 -0700

John,

            jak