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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:05:58 -0500

James, 

Right, this is what we have been arguing about with Dirk, Hemant, and
Govind. The MN should get the GAARs and decide. The requirement I posted
does not say that the AR sends those to the MN, it says that the
protocol should provide them to the MN. Exactly how is the task of the
protocol design. Dirk, Hemant, and Govind have been making the
assumption that they have to come from one specific AR, this might not
be the case, but, it depends on the design.

[DOT] Even if it comes from different ARs, the information might be unwanted.
The interpretation that I assumed that one AR will send this information,
kind of confuses me.

However, I am sympathetic to the efficiency argument and have no
objection to a network efficiency requirement. I posted one in a
response to Hemant's message.

[DOT] As I said in a previous email, what is the efficiency requirement
worth if another requirement demands for sending all this information??
It is maybe useful for choosing a representation format for the transferred
information that is as efficient as possible.

Regards,

Dirk

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:25:51 -0800

> information that is as efficient as possible.

It means that the protocol must be as efficient as possible. Full stop.

Anything else is solution space.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:25:51 -0800

jak