Subject: RE: CT reliability model was RE: [seamoby] [Issue] Support for Mu lti- Phase CT

From: Phillip Neumiller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:57:43 -0400

> Glad to hear you like FMIPv6++, but I still don't see much of a
> benefit in combining CT within the MIP message.

I have not heard one technical reason why NOT.  This is just YOUR
opinion Pat.  In fact I DONT like your poly-phasic idea and I have
stated technical reasons why.  Why don't you give me a "technical"
reason why rather than "I don't see much of a benefit" stuff?

BTW, I have not seen any real support for your polyphasic CT on
the list but it remains a requirement in your mind for some reason.

Thanks,

Phil

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 07:18:34 -0700

> reason why rather than "I don't see much of a benefit" stuff?

well, the IESG has already stated that their desire was to NOT tie 
CTP to MIP (and if memory serves, that was your position until just
recently too). There are other mobility management protocols out there,
and I'd hate to see them have to ignore CTP just because it is part of
the MIP baggage. 

Further, what are the benefits? Sending a single packet, as opposed to two?
Where's the benefit there? I can have two threads work separately in
transmitting the MIP and CT packets. That would reduce the number of locks
required, and introduces modularity. Great benefits IMHO.

> the list but it remains a requirement in your mind for some reason.

hmmm... well, so far I've only seen this e-mail stating that poly-phasic
is not desired. Perhaps I missed your technical reason for it, which is 
possible since my e-mails been overflowing. Could you perhaps send those
reasons again, or a pointer to the archives?

If there isn't support, then I agree that we need to remove it. I am not
trying to circumvent the process here. I genuinely thought there was
support.

PatC