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

From: "Shahrier, Sharif M." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 16:32:27 -0500

Hello Folks,
 
            Although this may be little late, I wanted to comment on the CT
requirements draft. I would like to propose some changes to the existing
draft, and also have some additional requirements that I would like to be
added. I would be grateful if the editor of the draft and the WG members
will consider my recommendations. Thanks.
 
-Sharif.
 
============================================================================
==================
 
Section 5.1.2 "The context transfer protocol MUST define a stanard
representation for coveying context information that will be interpreted
uniformly and perspicuously by different implementations"
 
I would like this to be deleted, because it has nothing to do with the
actual "transfer" of the context. 
 
Section 5.5.2 "A context update MUST preserve the integrity, and thus the
meaning, of the context at each receiving AR"
 
The paragraph following this text has nothing to do with data integrity, and
therefore should be totally removed.
 
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".
 
4.17 "The context transfer protocol MUST minimize the number of signaling
messages at the sending and receiving Access Routers".
 
4.18 "The context transfer protocol MUST support both centralized and
distributed location of context information."
 
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".

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:08:12 -0800

Sharif,

Last Call for the Seamoby requiremets is already closed. Gary is
currently in the process of generating
a new draft,  based on the comments he received during Last Call.
Because some of those
comments were controversial, we decided to re-issue Last Call again when
the draft is available
in the Internet Drafts directory. That would be the proper time to
submit any new comments
on the document.

Could you please resubmit your comments to the mailing list after Pat or
I have issued Last
Call on the new version of the document? Thanx.

            jak