Subject: RE: [seamoby] L2 API (WAS: Ext. for FMIPv6 - comments) (SHOULD be , RE: Issue #4)

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:33:02 -0700 (PDT)

Gary,

Thanx for the reply.

>Oh, ok. My mistake. Then you are not suggesting that we put it into
>the requirements, given that it is a specific example?
>

I don't think an example is needed. Just that the requirements will
support it.

>Personally, and I've tried to suggest this before, I think we 
>should nod at what we have, and move on to the design. We can always 
>go back to the requirements if we decide that there is something 
>seriously wrong. A moot point, perhaps, because there appears to
>be only one open issue, and it will hopefully be resolved in
>London.
>

I fully support this! The 90 minutes Pat has scheduled should
hopefully be enough for everybody to get the last word.

>I hope this helps James. To be clear: MIP is only one of the possible
>mobility solutions that ct has to work with. Many of the alternative
>mobility solutions are either non-public, under development, or non-IETF,
>so we stumble over each issue as it comes up, and struggle with all the
>ambiguities.
>
>

I understand that MIP is only one of many, but I'm particularly concerned
about MIP. View MIP as a customer. I would like the CT requirements, and,
ultimately, the framework or protocol to support MIP.

		jak

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:52:13 -0700

> ultimately, the framework or protocol to support MIP.

Bingo!

PatC