Subject: [seamoby] Problem definintions going forward (was...)

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:28:10 -0800 (PST)

Hi Pat,

>
>While this is being done, the ADs have authorized the WG to work on
>requirements. So a new section in the problem statement I-D will include
>requirements (which means the I-D will probably need a new name). Once
>completed, Mobile IP will be evaluated against the requirements. Mobile IP is
>a valid protocol, and not one to be ignored. Whether or not it is satifactory
>as an MM protocol will be known once the evaluation is complete.
>
>Of course, the requirements need to be justified. Any requirement in the I-D
>will require a justification statement.
>

Is this true of the other problem areas as well?

IHMO, I think the problem is well enough understood in the paging case
that we can move forward with protocol work. Context transfer also
seems close, but I'll defer to the team members for their judgement.

		jak