Subject: [Seamoby] openness for advanced paging strategies in DMHA

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:24:56 +0100

Hi all,

the architecture of the Paging Agent node in the current base line draft
for the WG's DMHA protocol intends to be open for several paging
strategies. As James proposed, maybe it is appropriate to take detailed
sections addressing different paging strategies and characteristics out
for the WG's protocol framework draft. In my opinion, deployment of
different paging strategies is an important area, therefore, the future
WG architecture and the protocol for DMHA should allow deployment of
several paging strategies. Therefore, I propose the following: Taking
out the details on paging strategies and having later a reference on a
possibly stand-alone document describing the paging strategy specifics.
We could have a very brief comment in the draft addressing the 'role of
a paging strategy' (sec. 1.1.4 in draft-renker) and the concept's
openness.

Comments are appreciated.

marco

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: Pars MUTAF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:55:39 +0100

Hello,

> Comments are appreciated.

IMHO this would be a very efficient design choice (I mean,
supporting multiple paging policies). For two reasons (at least):
1- Seems like no paging policy suits well all mobility scenarios
2- Paging policy research is not finished (especially in IP area).

regards,
pars

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:39:37 -0800

Marco,

I agree that the Seamoby DMHA protocol must provide
the mechanism for implemeting a variety of paging policies.
However, I don't believe the DMHA protocol should
specify a particular policy or policies. The protocol spec
might use one or two example policies to show how
the paging mechanism can be used, but that could also
be done in another document which is more comprehensive
and illustrates how to deploy a variety of paging policies.
So I support separating out the discussion of implementing
particular paging policies in a separate document.

            jak

---

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:25:38 +0100

Pars,

thanks for your feedback. Another big issue is paging related signaling cost.
In order to optimize the paging process, an architecture and design should
allow several paging strategies, reducing signaling cost, but performing under
a given delay constraint. So, I will keep a brief comment on the support of
different paging strategies in a first farmework cut, but take out the
details, as recommended by James. There has been done some work on paging
strategies already (see references list in draft-renker), so we should
consider respective openness.

Regards,

Marco

---

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:37:23 +0100

James,

> particular paging policies in a separate document.

Of course no discussion or detailed explanation should be in, but a few
sentences on the designs openness and maybe a reference to an extra document
(which could refer to some work done already in this area).

marco