Subject: RE: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:37:56 +0300

Hi Alan,

> Its a nick pit but we do need to cover the mobile network 
> equally well in the draft. We are overly dependent on the 
> host routing term (with all its baggage) so maybe mobile 
> enhanced routing would be better ?

Oh no!  Let's not get down a 'name that protocol' rathole
just yet!  (just kidding - but it might be useful to focus
on defining the problem than naming it!!!)

> If Phil makes this clear, then I think we can all agree that 
> we are talking about a very different problem than is presently 
> solved in the Internet, that of support for rapidly changing 
> prefixes (at mobility rates) where the prefixes include a large 
> proportion of hosts, and mobile entities are not renumbered on 
> movement.
> 
> Its not the whole problem, just a reasonable slice that if 
> solved brings community benefits.

Agreed.  I'm getting more than a little tired of the 'let's 
through all of our gripes and see what sticks ...'
approach.  I think we really need to focus on what is appropriate
and where it is appropriate for. 

Unless someone can suggest improvements to the text, I'd suggest
that Phil R. submit the draft.

br,
John

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 05:41:14 -0500

Hi John,
> and where it is appropriate for.

Maybe some of the stuff that has stuck already, i.e. stuff that is
supported in the draft you edited, could be further refined into
additional IRTF recommendation drafts.  I could not agree MORE
with focusing on what is appropriate and where.  I think we are
on the same page there.

Thanks,

Phil