Subject: RE: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 10:00:22 +0300

Hi Arthur,

I'm deleting much text, to get to the point ...

> "2.2 Problem Two"
[original text clipped]

>    "Moreover, in a wireless-connected mobile host environment, routing and

>    QoS are intimately related to the radio nature of the connection.
Effective
>    management of communication performance involves cooperation and
exchange
>    of information among radio access points. Host-based routing will be
more
>    useful if it supports such communication-engineering aspects of
>    wireless mobile IP services. [CNP] may be of use in this interaction."

Is what you are saying something along these lines:

"Devices (mobile/stationary & wireless/wired) may have multiple points of 
connection to the Internet.  These connections may not be static and may 
change over time.  Further more, these connections may suffer from 
reliability problems.  Therefore, any solution should be tolerant to 
these conditions."

Am I getting your gist?
 
> And add the following to the references:
> 
>    [CNP] P. Neumiller, "Applying Contract Net Protocol to 
> Mobile Handover State Transfer, Draft-neumiller-seamoby-cnpmobility-00, 
> November 17, 2000.

I've asked Phil N. several times if this is something he is 
intending to persue ... I have yet to receive an answer.  Perhaps
it wouldn't be good to cite it, as Internet Drafts should only
be considered 'Works in Progress' and will expire.

br,
John

---

From: Arthur Ross <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:13:15 -0700

>Hi Arthur,
[snip]
>reliability problems.  Therefore, any solution should be tolerant to
Close. Although my intent was to suggest not only that the protocol should
be TOLERANT of not-wholely reliablble links, but that there may be
mechanisms, perhaps not addressed in this particular IRTF project, that may
proactively MANAGE and ENHANCE link performance through, e.g.,
macro-diversity, or even micro-diversity, among other things. The solution
should be cognizant of those potential mechanisms, and supportive of them
where necessary.

For example, if indeed it evolves that there is a network entity that
serves that combiner-distributor function, then that device might be the
endpoint (CoA), as seen by the routing protocols, with some other mechanism
for connection to the actual radio transceiver(s). Or maybe both sides are
part of it. There is a question of the network architecture abstractions
here too.

... putting on the ol' ahmr English teacher wannabe hat ... and noting the
spec-ese language nuance of the difference between "may" in the sense of
"it is permissible to ..." versus "it may transpire in the future that ..."
or "it is physically possible that ..." .... how about something like:

"Devices (mobile/stationary & wireless/wired) can have multiple points of
connection to the Internet.  Those connections in general will not be
static and will change over time.  Furthermore, network-supported
mechanisms for communication link performance managment and enhancement may
become available in the future. The solution should support that multiple
connectivity and those mechanisms, if and when they become available."

>be considered 'Works in Progress' and will expire.
Indeed, take it up with Phil. I have no problem one way or the other. While
I still think it's a good concept, it is not essential to the central issue.

   -- ahmr