Subject: [seamoby] MM requirements (was: IRTF mm problem statement)

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:30:55 -0500

Also, this brings up another point.  The current SeaMoby MM Problem
statement will probably not be re-issued as NOONE seems to care ...

MN>> Sorry for the late reply, I was on vacation :)
Well, what is the status?? until a few days ago, it was not
clear whether is on the charter or not, I am interested in the
requirement phase, as I said earlier, and I am sure many others are,
but that does not mean I have to drop everything and respond on every 
rant that goes on here. It would be nice to start from a technical text
(no offense to you and my appologies for my ignorance) rather than from
rants.
Let us know what the status is? Is problem statement done?
the last thing I heard about the requirement was whether it is
called CNP or not? do we want to start from CNP?

regards,
Madjid

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 13:29:29 -0700

> called CNP or not? do we want to start from CNP?

The MM work was split into three items. Please see the minutes from the
Minn meeting for more detaiil (really don't want to re-hash it all over
again).

As far as the micro-mobility work is concerned, an internet-draft was
put together by Phil Roberts (see seamoby archives for info), and this
has been passed onto the IRTF routing chair.

Now, the other item you seem to be refering to, which is what I call
Handoff Candidate Discovery (for lack of better terms) is in the new
proposed charter (please see the proposed charter I sent last week).

So the work will occur, but I am waiting for IESG OK.

Thanks,

PatC