Subject: [seamoby] Standard Representation of Context Information

From: "Denio Mariz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:43:20 -0300

Hello:

In [draft-ietf-seamoby-ct-reqs-01.txt], section 5.1.2 we have:

    "The context transfer protocol design MUST define a standard
      representation for conveying context information that will be
      interpreted uniformly and perspicuously by different
      implementations."

So, to define a "standard representation" do you think is important is to
know exactly what information will be involved in each "context" ?
If yes, and considering the diversity of contexts that can be involved in
this work, who will to establish  this information ?

Thanks,

Denio.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:52:50 -0700

take a look at 

http://people.nokia.net/~rajeev/draft-koodli-seamoby-hc-relocate-01.txt
http://people.nokia.net/~rajeev/draft-westphal-seamoby-qos-relocate-00.txt

Please read the sections on Header Compression profile types, and QoS
profile types. They might answer your question. Each feature (we are 
currently working on a IPSec profile type) will have to define its own 
profile types and the associated profile.

Vijay

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 08:36:35 -0700

Hi,

I see Vijay's approach.
I am wondering whether we can take an approach to similar SDP (Session
Description Protocol) where information is represented as a pair of field
name and its value in text form. Its advantage is flexibility. Thus we can
add new information quite easily later. Also we can accomodate routers which
do not support all the features in each context profile.
Well, handling text might be slower than handling predefined binary format
message. Would it be a big problem for routers?
My sense is that its advantage overwhelms the performance difference.

What do you think?
Regards,

Eunsoo