Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Examples of CAR discovery

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:22:31 -0500

Hi James,

I prefer wording that specifically requires the MN to be involved in
getting the CAR information. Thus:

    The CAR discovery protocol MUST provide the MN with GAAR
information, along with capabilities.

[DOT] We currently have a requirement stating the usability of 
information. The question though is whether your requirement for 
instance in a network-assisted approach would mean that the current 
AR has to send the entire list of GAARs with capabilities to the MN 
or that the MN should be able to request this information. The former one
looks terribly inefficient to me when it comes to larger capability sets.
The latter one is providing-on-request. As I said this is already in the 
requirements in terms of usability of information.

This is clear and unambiguous about what network entity is in control
during an intertechnology handover.

[DOT] Again as a reminder, TAR selection is not within the scope of
CAR discovery, so it should be possible to implement ANY kind of
TAR selection. Whether in your model, the MN is 'in control' or
'in charge' doesn't really matter as long as we don't define
TAR selection as being in scope, and therefore as to be addressed.

Regards,

Dirk

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:45:58 -0800

Dirk,

> requirements in terms of usability of information.

This is TBD.

> TAR selection as being in scope, and therefore as to be addressed.

Right, just so long as the requirements don't make this ambiguous. I
don't think we want people proposing complicated AAA-based solutions for
having the MN tell the network whether one of its interfaces is switched
on when the MN just needs to check its power mangement software itself.
:-) The requirements should be clearly worded to indicate that the MN is
in charge.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:45:58 -0800

Dirk,

This is TBD.

            jak