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

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:03:48 -0800

Sharif,

Comments included, marked with jak>.

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.

jak> Agreed. This requirement is in the domain of the individual
applications that use the protocol. Perhaps
it should say:

    Any application area that utilizes the context transfer protocol
MUST define a standard representation
    for conveying context information.

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

jak> I don't understand this. What is this supposed to mean?

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".
contexts or sub-divisions thereof".

jak> These two requirements assume that there will be only one context
transfer protocol for all application areas. I tend to believe that
there will be a set of protocols, some of which are tied directly to the
handover protocol, for better integration of those areas where timing
requirements are tightly tied to handover.

            jak

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:18:36 -0800

Hello James,

> applications that use the protocol. Perhaps

As Gary pointed out, this requirement is meant for interpreting the context
blob that is carried. In a message format, before the actual context
parameters are enumerated, an object (e.g., an IANA type number) identifies
the feature context so that a receiver can parse, interpret and act on.

Also, your use of the term of "application" may be confusing. We have been
using the term "feature" from the begining to refer to QoS, HC, security
etc..If by application you mean something else, please excuse this note and
explain further.

Regards,

-Rajeev

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 17:32:31 -0800

Hi Rajeev,

I actually meant "feature." I agree with the idea of having the blob
identified, I think the wording needs some work, since
apparently both Sharif and I misunderstood the nature of the
requirement.

        jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rajeev Koodli" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Shahrier, Sharif M." <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [seamoby] Some proposed changes to the requirements draft.