Subject: RE: FW: [seamoby] CT trigger or CT completion? was: proactive an d re active CT definitions

From: "Gary Kenward" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:55:23 -0400

The problem statement did (at one time I believe) try to cover
different possible scenarios for ct. The controversy over the
interpretation of "AP" led me to change the names of the ct
peers to "forwarding node" to encompass any two IP forwarding
nodes of a like nature. By definition, the FNs have to be of a
like nature in order for the receiving FN to understand the context
of a sending FN. "Of a like nature" is rather fuzzy, but I don't
believe that we need to be more specific (it really means that
the features at the two FNs have to match in order for the ct to
work, how's that for a tautology).

HOWEVER, unless there is a new wg definition of "AP" out there, the
original definition of an AP identified it as a layer 2 device.
I believe we did decided that ctp would only work with layer 3 entities
(although it may transfer layer 2 context blobs). This does not
stop someone from putting an IP protocol stack at an AP simply for
the purpose of supporting ctp of layer 2 context blobs, but, it
also means that ctp does resides at layer 3, and it's operation is
conditioned not by layer 2 requirements, but by accepted practices
for IP protocols (e.g, as a counter example, ctp will not run 
synchronously between two nodes, as would be required if the 
context blobs contained layer 2 power control information).

Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 9:47 AM
> To: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1
> Cc: 'Rajeev Koodli'; 'Pat Calhoun'; 'Charles E. Perkins';
> [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: FW: [seamoby] CT trigger or CT completion? was: proactive
> an d re active CT definitions
> 
> 
> back from vacation. Sorry for the latency.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 01:52:25PM -0500, Nakhjiri 
> Madjid-MNAKHJI1 wrote:
> > Pat, if I misunderstood the scope of CT, please let me know,
> > I thought CT is scoped handle AR-AR only.
> 
> well, I am not sure that I know the scope more than you do, but
> I don't see a reason to restrict its usage to AR-AR only. An AP
> implementor could use our protocol to transfer state as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> PatC
>

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 07:58:42 -0700

Gary,

I agree. If one wants to support CTP in an AP, it must support IP.
My point was that although we are envisioning CTP being used in ARs,
we must not specifically prohibit its use in other devices.

PatC