Subject: [seamoby] Minutes: Paging Design Team Meeting Requirements Kick Off!

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:52:36 -0600

March 14, 2001 17:00 UTC

In Attendence
----------------------------------------------
Sharif N, Shahrier,      Interdigital, Inc.
Arthur H. M. Ross,  Novatel Wireless, Inc.
Bechet Sarikaya,         Alcatel, Inc.
Peter Lei,               Cisco Systems, Inc.
Ramachandran Ramjee,     Lucent Technologies, Inc.
James Kemp,         Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Phil Neumiller,          3Com, Inc.

-1).  Hellos

0). General Agenda was discuss list questions about the paging draft
    and the draft and upcoming IETF meeting.

1). There was a brief and rapid discussion about agent advertisements
     and MIP extensions that were brought out in the HAWAII proposal.
     I did not catch the conclusion of this conversation.  If it could be posted
     to the paging list so that it could be captured in the draf that would be
     very good.

2).  We agreed to a bi-weekly process of draft updates.

        Bi-weekly Draft Revision Process for Paging DT
       ==========================================
       A). Comments on  the paging DT submitted drafts are due by Monday
             morning.
       B). All previously posted comments meeting the Monday deadline
             will be discussed during the Wednesday conference call.
       C). The draft editor will incorporate the consensus of the DT
              changes into the draft by the following Monday allowing a
              a one week review period for the new draft.

3).  There was a brief discusion about whether a mobile should
        notify the network when it goes dormant.

Phil's NOTE:  I like the idea of preparing a paging draft specifically
for MIP that we can finish right away and send on its way and a more
forward looking draft that we can build into a more utopian paging
draft.  In the case of the MIP draft we can make some assumptions
about the architecture like the existance of an HA or FA for instance
and we can talk about what a MN might notify when it goes dormant.
My $2.

4).  Further discuss centered around James followup Email on
       Bechet's draft that was posted to the list.

5).  Its a sticky issue to isolate a problem statement from a requirment
       from a solution space issue sometimes.

6).  Recognizing James comment recognizing Kulwinders comments
       about the many different paging modes, I would suggest that
       we be flexible enough to support network clue and mobile
        clued modes or even mobile gives network a clue about
        supported paging modes (context transfer?)

7). Phil's NOTE on James Pg 2 comment.
       I am not sure about the dorman mode MN MUST have to respond
      to L3 pages.  As Kulwinder has stated this may imply waking up
      a heavy current draining micro-processor where a CMOS radio
      L2 is actively linked to a base site and the L3 ACK can be proxy
       from there.  You get the same effect.

8).  I think the concept of keeping paging state in a router should
       not be implied.  This is making a solution space decision.
       If it is a router, is it an edge router, a core, router, is it a home
       agent router?  Why couldn't it be a server?  -pdn

9).  Saying that paging protocol must be robust is rather redundant.
       I assume that we will pick a robust transport protocol to carry
       it right?

As always please post any followups or corrections to these
minutes.

Thank you!

Phil Neumiller