Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Seamoby CT Protocol Requirements Issue 1: Section 5 .2

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:12:38 -0500

Disagree with 1 and 3.
Agree with 2.

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:22 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Seamoby] Seamoby CT Protocol Requirements Issue 1: Section 5.2

The following are proposals for Section 5.2. Please indicate which proposal
you
AGREE with (if any), and which proposals you DISAGREE with. Please *only*
indicate AGREE with only one proposal.

-----------
Proposal 1: Remove Section 5.2 entirely. Say nothing about transport in the
requirements.
-----------

-----------
Proposal 2: Replace Section 5.2 with the following:

   5.2 Transport Requirements

        This section contains requirements on the context transfer
transport.

    5.2.1  The context transfer protocol MUST be specified so that it is
               independent of the underlying transport.

            Recognizing that the transport characteristics for context
transfer
            will depend on the particular application, it should be possible
to
            transfer context directly on top of reliable transports, such as
TCP
            or SCTP, unreliable transports, such as UDP, or as an option or
            extension on another protocol, such as handover signaling.

-----------

-----------
Proposal 3: Replace Section 5.2 with the following:

   5.2 Transport Requirements

        This section contains requirements on the context transfer
transport.

    5.2.1  The context transfer protocol MUST be specified to utilize a
reliable
               transport protocol as a default, unreliable transport MAY
also be
               optionally allowed.

               Recognizing that context transfer may be crucial for
successful
               handover, the context transfer protocol must specify
operation
              on a default reliable transport. The context transfer protocol
may
              optionally allow transfer on unreliable transport.

    5.2.2  The context transfer protocol MUST run directly on top of a
transport
              protocol. Context transfer within another application layer
              protocol MUST NOT be allowed.

              In order to preserve the unity of context transport across all
              feature applications, context transfer must run directly on
top of
             a transport protocol. Running context transfer as an option on
             another application layer protocol is prohibited.
-----------

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

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

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Aug 2002 08:22:10 -0700

Wonder which order I should be looking at your e-mails... is the last of
the two your preferred response?

Seriously, the issue with 1 & 2 is that they are non-requirements... not
specifying a transport, and saying that anything could be used are
basically the same. Although this may be fine, and we can try to push
this through, this is the state we were at when Alison informed us that
we would be getting some help from the transport directorate (which, of
course, never happened).

So if folks prefer 2, let's try it and see what happens. At this point,
there isn't much to lose :(

PatC

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Aug 2002 08:22:10 -0700

PatC