Subject: RE: [seamoby] Some proposed changes to the requirements draft.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:58:01 +0200

Hi Sharif,

My comments, inline:

> Next, I would like to following additional requirements in the CT 
> requirements draft.

> 4.16 "The context transfer protocol MUST be scalable. It MUST be 
> scalable to millions of hosts".

This is 'motherhood & apple pie' text (i.e. - noone would really
disagree). I don't know how this adds anything to the text.  
Additionally, I would suggest SHOULD rather than MUST is
what you mean.

> 4.17 "The context transfer protocol MUST minimize the number of 
> signaling messages at the sending and receiving Access Routers".

I don't see the need for this.  I don't think this should be
a requirement.

> 4.18 "The context transfer protocol MUST support both centralized 
> and distributed location of context information."

I don't think that there is any concensus for this kind of 
requirement to be added.

> 5.6.1 "The context transfer protocol MUST include methods for 
> interworking with any IETF IP handover solutions".
>
> 5.6.2 "The context transfer solution MAY include methods for 
> interworking with non-IETF handover solutions".
>
> 5.1.6 "The context transfer protocol MUST provide mechanisms for 
> sharing contexts or sub-divisions thereof".

I don't agree that the last 3 should be added.

John

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 09:14:36 -0600

Hi John,
  I think that IETF does not want the words like MUST, SHOULD in a
requirements document. The requirements are a must anyway.

My 0.02 euros.

--
Behcet