Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Re: [mobile-ip] Thoughts on using handover capability extension

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:24:17 -0800

> [DOT] Instead of pushing towards link type only capabilities and quickly
> designing a protocol that does that and will then support future capabilities
> of which we have no idea of how they might look like, I would appreciate a
discussion
> on those capabilities. In all this time since CAR is discussed, there has been
no
> thorough discussion regarding those capabilities and their scope within CAR.
Therefore,
> I propose to put a work item on the SEAMOBY charter on defining capabilities
for CAR
> discovery. From my point of view, this work is clearly necessary to understand
> CAR solution proposals better. The current issues draft (hopefully RFC soon)
gives
> first hints of what those capabilities might be. This is a good starting point
to elaborate
> further on this.

Is the reason you want to have this discussion because Nokia is planning
products with CAR?

            jak

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:01:37 -0500

Hi James,

>
>TAR selection by the AR was thoroughly discussed in the 
>requirements phase and
>rejected. It is not in the requirements and it should not be 
>there. This is
>something internal to the AR and has nothing at all to do with 
>the protocol.

[DOT] I'm kind surprised of your interpretation of the requirements. 
TAR selection performed at AR has never been ruled out and is not at all
in contradiction to MN being under control, as long as the MN is still able
to specify how the selection has to be performed. We indeed had such a discussion
of who is in control, but not where protocol functionality resides. The current
DT document does a very helpful job in shedding light on the functionality
placement issue. 

>
>The MN should just solicit for capabilities, and it should get 
>them. If should
>be able to put the capabilities it wants into the 
>solicitation. Since the only
>capability that any application is in a position to use right 
>now is the link
>technology, that is all that we should be specifiying. We can 
>leave the rest
>open by making the protocol extensible.

[DOT] Instead of pushing towards link type only capabilities and quickly
designing a protocol that does that and will then support future capabilities
of which we have no idea of how they might look like, I would appreciate a discussion
on those capabilities. In all this time since CAR is discussed, there has been no
thorough discussion regarding those capabilities and their scope within CAR. Therefore,
I propose to put a work item on the SEAMOBY charter on defining capabilities for CAR
discovery. From my point of view, this work is clearly necessary to understand
CAR solution proposals better. The current issues draft (hopefully RFC soon) gives
first hints of what those capabilities might be. This is a good starting point to elaborate
further on this.

Regards,

Dirk