Subject: [seamoby] CT Applicability

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:50:09 -0700

Subject: CT Applicability
From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 10:39:44 -0700

Hello folks,

does anyone have any idea about the transport "constraints" for CT ? I
think this is important because, among others, it will determine the CT
applicability. Clearly we cannot expect CT to work in a MANET cloud (as
Vijay pointed out sometime ago) assuming pre-existing associations
between CT peers. How about Paging ? If I wish to transfer contexts
while alerting a dormant mode (e.g., using multicast), what transport
assumptions are necessary ? Comments ?

Driven by this thought, I have a proposal.

- we should focus on defining the context defintions (blobs) for
individual feature contexts
- we should identify, in detail, the requirements of individual contexts
and the associated protocol processing at CT peers. And,
- we must allow for using these context blobs in different environments,
e.g., including (but not limited to) handover signaling, paging, MANET
clouds, networks with any arbitrary topology..

Comments ?

Regards,

-Rajeev

---

From: "Kulwinder Atwal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:21:27 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rajeev Koodli" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 1:39 PM
Subject: CT Applicability

> applicability.

> Clearly we cannot expect CT to work in a MANET cloud (as
> between CT peers.

I believe this statement does not allow for the development of more dynamic
stituations.
For example, the use of GSM CellPhone "SIM Card-like" credentials in a
mobile enviroment could provide dynamic security associations.

A more correct statement maybe:

CT requires an asscociation to exist between CT Peers prior to, and for the
duration of  the Context Transfer operation.  The creation and termination
of this assocation is out of scope of the Context Transfer Protocol.

Therefore, any solution (including a  MANET solution) must ensure that such
an association exists prior to initiating Context Transfer and for the
duration of the Context Transfer operation between CT peers.

- Kulwinder.

 How about Paging ? If I wish to transfer contexts

---

From: "Koodli Rajeev \(NRC/MtView\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 18:34:14 -0500

Kulwinder,

> mobile enviroment could provide dynamic security associations.

Well, I didn't mean security associations when I used the word
association. Perhaps I should have been explicit. I meant a transport
association, as in SCTP association.

In any case, the point is that if we require pre-existing transport
associations, we will restrict CT to those peers that have such
associations. Else, we need to make the case for creating such
associations dynamically.

Regards,

-Rajeev