Subject: [seamoby] Questions on CAR Discovery Problem Statement?

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:14:05 -0700 (PDT)

Folks,

The CAR discovery problem statement is currently in last call. At IETF
51 in London, I vaguely recall after Govind's presentation hearing that some WG 
members were uncertain why CAR discovery was necessary. The current problem
statement attempts to address this question more directly than
the original did. I hope those of you who had this question will
read the problem statement and submit any further questions to the list.
In addition, if anybody has any further issues with the problem
statement, now is your chance to raise them. Thanx.

		jak

---

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:15:33 -0600

Sorry one more comment (now 0.5 cents/ per comments :) )

In the section 4.1 on refuting manual configuration of routers,
you forgot to mention networks with mobile routers as another place
manual configuration would not work very well. 

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 3:03 PM
To: 'James Kempf'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [seamoby] Questions on CAR Discovery Problem Statement?

Hi,

Not sure if I have missed the deadline or not.
Can't say I have a problem with this work item, just
 a few comments about the draft:

1- I am glad to see that Capability discovery is mentioned here.
Recognizing the relationship between capability and CAR discovery is 
important.

2- I agree that the work of algorithm development for TAR selection
is out of scope, since the algorithm will depend on the selection 
criteria such as network policy and MN/ network preference.
However, I don't think the selection of CAR is entirely out of scope,
given the algorithm, there still need to be a protocol in place, which
I think this work item is trying to define.

3-Why the terminolgy of "anticipated v.s. dynamic" is used for 
"network assisted" v.s. "MN centric" CAR discovery.
The distinction being made in the draft is based on the unit that
is doing the work, and some temporal aspects but not all such
as static v.s. dynamic capabilities.
Let me explain:

In 4.2 you do talk about capabilities such QoS, security... as inputs to
selection algorithm. Some of these inputs are more static, such
as QoS profiles, PHBs, security policies and so on, 
while some of the inputs are more dynamic such as current state of the
congestion, bandwidth allocation in the network, and maybe even some 
fading on signal strength.

The more dynamic aspects would still need to be used as input.
So when you say dynamic CAR selection, I can't help it. I think 
about the dynamic capability discovery.

Just my 2 cents (2/3 cents per comment :) )
Keep up the good work,
Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 2:14 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [seamoby] Questions on CAR Discovery Problem Statement?

Folks,

51 in London, I vaguely recall after Govind's presentation hearing that some
WG 

		jak