Subject: RE: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement

From: "Hesham Soliman \(ERA\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 01:57:27 +0200

> I think I agree with Phil R. There is a lot going on the wireless space and
> any attempt to custom build IP protocols for wireless sounds to me like the
> wrong path to take...
> 
	=> I think Phil N point was that you do not need to custom
	build protocols for specific L2's. Instead abstracting the 
	common features of these L2s and considering that in the 
	MM design. Makes sense to me. 
	What's wrong with that ?

	Hesham

---

From: Arthur Ross <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 17:08:33 -0700

>	MM design. Makes sense to me.
This was exactly my original intent ... guess I didn't express it as well
as I could have.

   -- ahmr

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 17:22:42 -0700 (PDT)

> 	MM design. Makes sense to me. 

   The QoS folks have much the same problem and the
   result was the ISSLL working group. Whether that's
   appropriate here, I don't know but getting a base
   level abstraction followed by working on the
   L2-L3 glue may be a sensible problem partition.

	      Mike