Subject: [seamoby] GAARD Draft

From: "Xiaoning He" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:09:03 -0800

Hello all

We have submitted a draft for the SEAMOBY working group. I am not sure
when an announcement will be sent to this alias. You can access the
draft at following address

http://www.inogroup.com/apps/docomo/publications/docs/draft-funato-seamo
by-gaard-00.txt

FYI....

Xiaoning He

---

From: Theo Pagtzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:02:28 +0000

Hello Xiaoning,

  While I appreciate your work, I am surpized not to see my work
referred anywhere in your proposal (like others), since I have already
proposed something like that back in July where the core element
revolves about the distinction between the mobility and routing
neighbourhood.

Please see

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pagtzis-seamoby-proactivev6-00.txt

Regards

Theo
UCL/Mobile Systems Group

---

From: "Xiaoning He" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 18:22:25 -0800

Hi Theo

We really appreciate your comments on our draft. Since the draft is
still at its .00 statuses, we didn't intent to neglect your work.
Probably we just missed it.

My initial impression with your draft is that your draft is a
comprehensive framework which proposed a new scheme for mobility. So, it
will be very helpful if you can further let us know which part of your
draft contains the similar contents as ours. 

Thank you

Xiaoning He 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Theo Pagtzis
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:02 PM
To: xiaoning
Cc: IETF-Seamoby Working Group; Atsushi Takeshita; Carl Williams; Daichi
Funato
Subject: Re: [seamoby] GAARD Draft

Hello Xiaoning,

Please see

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pagtzis-seamoby-proactivev6
-00.txt

Regards

Theo
UCL/Mobile Systems Group

---

From: Theo Pagtzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 08:10:35 +0000

Hi Xiaoning,

  If you look at the approach that I follow for the RNV aquisition with
temporal reactive learning you will see that the approach is almost
identical. It is just that the names of your terms that change. I am
talking about a coverage area tuple, you describe it as an cached id.

Theo
UCL/Mobile Systems