Subject: [seamoby] I-D draft-sarikaya-seamoby-hmip6hp-00.txt

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:31:36 -0500

Hello,
  We submitted an I-D to IETF. It is also available at:
http://www.geocities.com/bsarikaya/draft-sarikaya-seamoby-hmip6hp-00.txt

Abstract

   This document specifies Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Hierarchical Paging
   (HMIPv6HP), an IP host alerting protocol which is a link-layer
   independent extension to Hierarchical Mobile IPv6. The extension
   allows a mobile node to enter a power saving dormant mode during
   which its location is known with coarse accuracy defined by a paging
   area. In the visited domain only the paging mobility anchor point
   (PMAP) is responsible for keeping the binding cache entries for
   dormant mobile nodes and, it re-establishes the downlink routes on
   demand by means of paging. Paging is initiated by the paging agent
   (PA) and the access routers in paging areas and does not involve
   periodic layer 3 messages to be sent except for time-slot based
   paging which is optional and is to be used on links with no support
   for layer 2 paging.

Comments welcome.
  Kind regards,
--
Behcet

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:37:22 -0700

I take it that this is a candidate protocol for our domant host alerting
work (AKA paging), right? If so, then the WG is still waiting for the
IESG to accept the requirements spec, after which we will begin the
protocol work.

Thanks for the submission,

PatC

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:52:43 -0400

We are going to ask for a slot in London to present the draft. Keep this in
mind when you schedule things for London meeting.

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:59:13 -0700

Let me try again. We have priority items at the moment, which is the CT
requirements and the Handoff discovery Problem Statement. Since the paging
requirements haven't been accepted by the IESG yet, it is premature to be
discussing protocols.

If we have time at the end of the meeting, folks with paging protocol
interest can use the room, but there is no guarantee. Another alternative
is to have a bar meeting of all paging protocol folks. 

I understand that this is important, but protocol discussions prior 
to acceptance of requirements is not acceptable. If you have issues 
with my decision, please take it up with the Area Directors.

Thanks,

PatC