Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-mobileip-reg-tunnel-06.t xt

From: "Karim El-Malki (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:29:51 +0200

That's a bit of a biased comment isn't it?
In particular there was more than one person who questioned
your experiments.

>  In order to clarify the situation, the 
 > authors, WG
 > chairs, and ADs have agreed to move it to experimental.

This question wasn't posed to the WG. This is what I had asked when I was
informed that the fate of the low latency draft was being discussed in a
group which I believe you (James) were part of. Just to clarify, I wasn't part
of this decision process so I had little choice other than to agree.

/Karim

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:57:24 -0700

> In particular there was more than one person who questioned

Karim, we have collected data showing that it performs lousy on IS-2000
RAN and it performs about as good as standard MIP handoff optimized to
use a Link Up trigger and Posthandover Mobile Initiated Tunneling on
802.11. What more do you want? I'll be happy to send you the slides if
the IPCN people agree to allow me to republish them. And, if you want to
perform the experiments yourself, we can give you the description and
you can replicate them.

> of this decision process so I had little choice other than to agree.

My recollection was that Hesham asked this question in Minneapolis and I
agreed that this was what we had decided on. Are you suggesting now that
we not do this?

            jak