Subject: [mobile-ip] LMM Requirements

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 12:32:51 -0500

We've asked Carl Williams to pull together the requirements for LMM that
have 
been agreed upon here into an I-D with some explanatory text.  Thanks to
Carl for
taking on this responsibility.  We hope to see them in an I-D form in 2-3
weeks.

If you would like to provide additional requirements, please feel free to
send them
to Carl or to discuss them on the list.

We would also like some feedback on whether or how having a particular draft
on LMM
as a working group item effects the requirements making process.  Are there
example requirements that might be considered if the HMIP draft were not
already in place as the working group draft? 

Basavaraj
Phil

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 13:44:32 -0500

This is the requirements fashion.
Throw away a few items and then collect them in
I-D format and get them RFCed.
  IMHO it is for
     nothing.
  but probably seamoby mania.
Remember many protocols including Mobile IP were developed
with no requirements RFCs.

  I would call upon a stop on this instead. HMIP people already issued
a new version. The stage is there for any competing protocols.

> already in place as the working group draft?

My 0.002 cents.

--behcet

---

From: Theo Pagtzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 12:37:12 -0700

Hi Bechet,

   I don't agree..I think the requirements document is probably the best solution
for convergence...we do not want to get IETF a battlefield for competition..it is
a protocol standardisation effort...

rather than putting the protocol like roosters in a fight to kill each other and
see who survives...I think we will gain some light years by working together..in
hopefully all respects..

things will only benefit from such a draft. If the constituency feels better
I would suggest that such drafts acknowledge people's participation either by
names or by whatever..as their bandwidth is offered towards solving a problem..

We need to maintain unity on forward progress and look at _all_ solutions to
bring some sound core (in particular LMM) specification that can sit on the Net
as solid as a rock. We cannot waste precious bandwidth at a time where the .com
community feels significantly _deflated_ (perhaps for a reason?).

While many protocols were developed without a requirement RFC it becomes clear
that when multiple solutions of some weight arise there is an imperative need to
strike convergence..and unity in the constituency. The requirements effort is
either an initial approach towards solution or over multiple protocol solutions a
rule base that the union of the  proposed protocols manifest (it is only fair
after so much work). The latter although a little longer winded gives actually a
much better perspective.

Theo

UCL/ Mobile Systems