Subject: Re: [seamoby] 4G BOF?

From: gary kenward <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:40:44 -0700 (PDT)

While I agree with many of your observations Andrew, a 4G BOF
will likely produce the same result. May I suggest that for
this BOF to succeed (even as a BOF), we would need to bound
the problem domain more then we did for CRAPS or SeaMoby.
In other words, if the BOF is to be about all wireless access
technologies, it will self-destruct in the usual firestorm.

I have my views, but what can we say 4G is that bounds the
problem space)?

Gary

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:52:04 -0500, Phil Neumiller wrote:

>  I think we MAY need a 4G BOF, i.e. what SeaMoby was supposed to be
>  as opposed to what it became.  This would be working on the global
>  Internet architecture for the purpose of improving global wireless
>  handovers of all types (primarily data, then QoS).  A primary goal of
this
>  work group could in fact be the large scale deployment of MIP (this being
>  ironic) by focussing on NON-carrier class mobility, i.e. growth of
wireless
>  access and handovers would take primary precedence over things like
>  AAA, security, QoS, etc.
>  
>  This would not conflict with MIP or SeaMoby (now son of MIP) since
>  these WGs are now ALMOST exclusively working on 3G network
>  applications of MIP, IMO.
>  
>  -pdn
>  
>

_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/