Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Concensus call on new CAR Discovery Requirement (was: Examples of CAR discovery)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:55:54 -0500

Hi Henrik,

	I think that's the essence of it. Do you oppose this? Why? Do you
want to make things more complicated than they have to be?

[DOT] Avoiding flooding of MN with unnecessary information might complicate
the design but might also be a worthwhile goal of a protocol design?

Dirk

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

---

From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:35:33 +0100

Dirk,

	We seem not to be communicating here. You snipped out the part of
my posting where I point out that this requirement does *not* imply that
the MN needs to bee flooded, and then you point out that to avoid flooding
might be worthwile.

	The point I was trying to make here was:
					This requirement does not require *all* GAAR
information, it does not require *on-demand operation*, it expresses exactly
what we are in a position to say about the matter now:

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

	I am starting to wonder why people protest and debate this requirement
so much, even when it seems to allow for all variations that people have
advocated, exactly as it stands?

	Henrik

---

From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:35:33 +0100

Dirk,

	Henrik

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:13:04 -0800

> the design but might also be a worthwhile goal of a protocol design?

If this is such a big issue then why not a simple requirement that says
the protocol should make optimal use of network bandwidth, with no
wording in it about whether the network or MN is in control?

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:13:04 -0800

jak