Subject: [seamoby] context priority was: Question on CT req 4.9

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:40:19 -0500

Pat,

I am not sure about the relation of size and priority, but as far
as priority alone, I did ask the same question long time ago, 
during our timing discussion.
Not much discussion took place actually and I thought maybe as we go along
and understand more about the demands of various feature's, we might sort
their context in priority before sending them over, a couple of things
to consider is:

What is needed first at the newAR to setup packet delivery (HC/ security?)
What gets updates on packet by packet basis, so it will become
stale by the time CT is getting close to completion (again HC?)
What context can wait until after resuming packet delivery to
MN at newAR?
Would you have to resend updates of some contexts before CT session is
over?

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [seamoby] Question on CT req 4.9

This require appears to imply that a context transfer is a one-shot event.
The whole
enchalada is sent when handoff occurs. Although I tend to agree with this, I
would
claim that in my mind (at least) it seems feasible for high priority data to
be
collected and transferred (e.g. HC state), while lower priority data be sent

a few seconds later (e.g. AAA accounting information). 

The reason why perhaps this may be useful is that if the packet size, and
hence
context state, of the high priority data is small enough, it will be faster
to
build on the oAR, parse, and install on nAR.

Has this discussion already taken place? Was there a decision that was
taken?

Thanks,

PatC