Subject: RE: [seamoby] work that "needs" to get done and where

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 13:14:46 +0300

Hi all,

> The second was for the seamoby mm design team to come up with a set of
> things which they believe an mm protocol MUST do and throw it 
> over to MIP to see whether the set of protocols in MIP can do those 
> things.  I haven't seen much activity on this.  John sent out an email 
> asking for volunteers recently I believe - don't know whether he got any 
> response.  

I've had one person respond "maybe, if it is about something that I want 
to do ..." and one person who has said that they are considering writing
an individual submission.

So, can I ask again? Who is interested in this work?  If this is something
of interest, let's crank up the MM Design Team.  I might even be able to
host some conference calls.

If this work is not of interest, let's drop it.  

John

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 07:40:07 -0500

John,

Please count me in.  I would like to contribute to this draft.  I can also
work out the CNP stuff (if the WG feels like that is useful).  I have had
a difficult time determining if there is interest in CNP in the WG as well.

If you want to look at what my next draft WAS going to be you can
download the MS Word paper from www.federalmobility.com/cnpoiplatest.doc.
Peter Lei (Cisco) and I were waiting to hear whether this paper was
accepted by the Mobicom 2001 conference before releasing any details to
the list, but the May 1st acceptance date has come and gone and I have heard
nothing (probably not a good sign :-)).

Eitherway, this is a technology we can take a look at for putting some more brains
into the handoff decision and it meshes quite nicely with context transfer.
Would you like to use this paper as a first item of discussion activity for the MM
design team?

Thanks,

Phil

---

From: Arthur Ross <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 06:38:43 -0700

>host some conference calls.
John -

As you no doubt gathered, I am intensely interested in this. I'm not sure
that this is exactly the right roadmap for getting to where I would like to
see "mobile IP" in the most generic sense wind up, but I certainly would
like to participate if it happens. ... and I've actually embarked on a
self-education campaign re routing & all, so next time I shoot my yap off
there may be something other than just the radio comm perspective behind it
;-).

To elaborate just a tad - I am thinking in terms of a grand design for MM
that operates on a philosophy of distributed control, using peer-to-peer
coordination, perhaps involving something like Phil's CNP. As this will be
a major change in the way the world of wireless works, it has high
potential for both fractiousness AND fun! Please count me in.

   -- Best
   -- ahmr

PS: I don't seem to have received your original mail on this thread, or if
I did it was mislaid somehow.

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:37:46 -0400 (EDT)

does this inclue an IP RAN gateway for mm? in your mind john?

thanks

/jim

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 07:03:59 -0700

> If this work is not of interest, let's drop it.  

FWIW, I am waiting for the new charter to be approved, which would include
this very work item. So, since it isn't in the charter, perhaps people are
reluctant to work on it. However, if people still aren't that interested
once the new charter is available, then I will be confused. I do recall
people complaining a whole lot about MIP on the list, and no one is 
willing to work on fixing it....

PatC