Subject: [seamoby] TEXT: our context transfer proposal

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 08:55:36 -0600

Hi folks,

Meant to send this note earlier than the IETF announce, seems
like IETF announce outpaced us. Anyhow:

seems like the context transfer req draft got through last call, so while
waiting
for IESG with responses, we sent a context transfer draft as a preliminary
solution proposal before Utah IETF submission deadline.

This draft is of course a preliminary proposal with the goal of
communicating  the  concept, the details are to be improved with help of
people who might be interested.

To encourage a reduction in the amount of amunition in fire power against
the draft :)
 here are a few motivators/ disclaimers:

1-the proposal performs CT outside timing path, so before, after during
handover issues
are not relevant.

2-Although we provide specific suggestions for various elements of the
protocol,
the proposal provides a great amount of flexibility and room for changes in
choice of
 	-triggers
	-who initiates the CT
	-the role of MN in CT
	-amount of reliability
i.e. choices different from what we specified in the draft.

3-Since the CT reliability and transport mechanisms requirements are not
clear,
we provide an optional reliability mechanisms, in case context delivery
needs to be
reliable. Note that reliablity of context may include need for updates (for
dynamic context) as opposed to retransmissions.
 No existing transport protocol provides updates, that is
the job of CT protocol (~application layer).
The reliability mechanism has a lot of room for improvements.

Please fire away,

Regards,
Madjid Nakhjiri

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 06:42:27 -0800

Just as a point of clarification, there were some comments generated during
the last call. These comments are being addressed, and a new version will soon
be available. Given the changes require, a new last call will be required.

Thanks,

PatC