Subject: RE: [seamoby] MM vs CT

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:55:58 -0600

John,

That is a very good point. I raised the issue of capability during our
conference calls, I think Phil N. did as well (sorry if I am wrong Phil). It
did make it to the A.4 appendix of the ct draft. 
Actually, looking at mm draft, I saw there are some other areas that I felt
could be border line issues, maybe not always to the point that we want to
tip the bucket to move the issue to one team versus the other, but sometimes
issues that need attention both for MM and CT problems. A degree of
awareness about how the other team is tackling a "common" issue would be
useful.

In this email, I don't want to advocate for including capability into one
design team or the other (I may in a later email :) ). However, at this
point, I do think, that it would be very beneficial, if the design teams
post at least their meeting minutes on the WG list, or to each other's list
or both (whatever), so we don't get too many surprises/ overlaps/
discrepancies when the drafts are out.

just my 2/100.

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 2:21 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [seamoby] MM vs CT

Hi all,

I'd like to get everyone's feeling about an issue.

It has been suggested that a handoff mechanism
may like to know the capabilities of a handoff 
target.  This could be useful, for example, when
there is more than one target.  The handoff 
mechanism may want to chose the one which
fufills the QoS requirements, for example.

My question is: what design team should tackle
this issue, MicroMobility or Context Transfer?

thanks,
John