Subject: Re: [seamoby] [[email-masked]: Re: seamoby] Re: seamoby] draft-ietf-seamoby-paging-problem-statement-01.txt]

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:23:29 -0800 (PST)

Madhavi,

>I just noticed that I forgot to 'cc' the mailing list (see attached).
>
>I realize that the problem statement for L3 paging focuses on dormant
>nodes, but I don't see why it should exclude other uses of 'L3
>paging'.
>
>I think the example I provided sounds like a good use of L3 paging and
>the scope should be mentioned in the problem statement.  Yes, the
>details aren't there, but this is a problem statement.
>

The design team didn't discuss this, and I believe the concensus of the 
design team was that we wanted to have some technical rigor behind our 
conclusions. If you can provide a detailed technical analysis
of the problem, why it can't be solved using Mobile IP as it currently
stands, and a recommendation of what item should be added to the
list of recommendations for the Seamoby charter by next Friday's 01+ drafts 
deadline, I will put it into the draft. Marketing text, superficial lists, and 
other light reading won't do. Please post the text to the 
seamoby-paging@diameter list. Thanx.
		jak

---

From: Madhavi Subbarao <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:07:54 -0500

Thanks, James.  Will do.

-Madhavi