Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CTP and CARD Drafts

From: "Daniel Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:14:24 +0000

Excuse me for being new to this list, and therefore short of details!

I'm interested to see that final submissions seem to have been made by 
seamoby, and I can see no evidence of plans for further work in this WG - is 
this in fact the case?

r.e. CTP draft; whilst this clearly seems to provide a simple (always 
good!), and security considered solution to signalling for CT, I cannot see 
where frameworks etc for Context Data Blocks or for plans (or examples?) for 
FPT type definitions. Are these outlined elsewhere, or is this 'future 
work'? Also, for DoCoMo's implementation, have they released any details of 
context type, description etc, or is it all 'in house'?!

r.e. CARD; this seems clearly aimed at discovery in single interface 
homogeneous IP networks - any thoughts on possible overlap with discovery in 
heterogeneous, multi-interface networks, or do you feel the problems, and 
hence solutions, are seperate/out of scope?

thanks for your comments. Regards, Morris.

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:31:37 -0800

> seamoby, and I can see no evidence of plans for further work in this WG -
is

The WG will be shutting down after the CARD and CTP drafts are published.

> context type, description etc, or is it all 'in house'?!

There is a simple example of a context defined in Appendix B of the CTP
draft, for multicast listener state. The header compression context Docomo
is planning on implementing is described in
draft-koodli-seamoby-hc-relocate-03.txt. I believe Nokia IPRG has also done
some work in this area. Rajeev, who is co-author on the HC transfer draft,
was scheduled to speak about it at the MOBOPTS meeting in Seoul but we ran
out of time.

Over the lifetime of Seamoby, there have been many proposals to standardize
particular context types (PPP, AAA, IPsec, QoS, etc.) but Seamoby was never
chartered to specify particular context types, just the transfer protocol.
At the WG meeting at IETF 57 in Vienna, we discussed possibly specifying the
header compression context, which would have required a charter amendment,
but there was sufficient dispute between ROHC experts whether header
compression context transfer was necessary that we decided not to pursue it
in the Seamoby group. However,  we have encouraged Rajeev to work together
with the ROHC group to answer the technical questions that arose and pursue
a specification.

The CTP draft specifies a procedure whereby a context profile can be
approved. A Designated Expert is assigned by the AD in the topic area to
evaluate the design, and a context profile type number is requested from
IANA.

> hence solutions, are seperate/out of scope?

Actually, it is designed for multi-interface hosts. CARD allows the AR to
advertise information about other wireless protocols available in the
surrounding geographic area. See Section 5.1.3.1 for a description of the L2
ID suboption format. The L2 ID suboption is designed to carry information
about possible heterogenous network availablilty.

            jak

---

From: Ivano De Luca <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:04:39 +0100

> The WG will be shutting down after the CARD and CTP drafts are 

Is this a scoop? After so much work, Seamoby 'll die ?
And who 'll take on the drafts ?

I hope that chairs 'll answer at the questions we'll make.....
I think a lot of questions

Ivano from PBG4

AIM : idlgdl

========================================================

"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send."
Jon PostelIl giorno 19/mar/04, alle 17:31, James Kempf ha scritto:

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:15:06 -0800

Closing a WG after the work is complete is considered a sign of success in
IETF. Working groups are not supposed to last forever. In fact, the record
for shortest working group is held by a WG that met for approximately 15
minutes, then disbanded to a hearty round of applause from all present.

                jak