Subject: RE: [Seamoby] MN in charge: What does this mean?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:51:06 -0500

James,

What about the requirement I posted:

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

[DOT] The MN being 'in charge' should not imply that it receives information 
it probably doesn't need. MN 'in charge' can also mean that it can express what 
information it wants to receive. After receiving information, the MN is still 
'in charge' of the final decision though.

[DOT] Just to make some progress on this issue, may I propose the following wording:
    The CAR discovery protocol MUST provide the MN with GAAR
    information, along with capabilities. The information provision
    MUST/SHOULD avoid the transmission of unnecessary information.

[DOT] Does this accomplish your efficiency statement?

Dirk

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:21:12 -0800

Dirk,

Good, looks like we are making progress.

> [DOT] Does this accomplish your efficiency statement?

I still think we need a network efficiency requirement. For example, a
protocol that multicasts once a second may be finding necessary
information, but it sure isn't network efficient.

How about:

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

        3.x The CAR discovery protocol MUST make efficient use of the
network bandwidth and SHOULD avoid the transmission of unnecessary
information.

This puts both aspects of efficiency in one statement.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:21:12 -0800

Dirk,

How about:

            jak

---

From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:21:55 +0100

> This puts both aspects of efficiency in one statement.

This looks good to me.

	Henrik

---

From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:21:55 +0100

This looks good to me.

	Henrik