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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:54:16 -0500

Hi James,

Anybody else out there have an opinion on this? Should we include this
requirement instead of requirement 3.4, which has the AR in control?

[DOT] Can you explain to me where requirement 3.4 states that AR is in control?
You should realize that the expression of requirements to do the job of CAR
discovery is simply necessary to do the matching. Even if the MN is doing 
the matching, you still needs means to express requirements.

Regards,

Dirk

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:53:56 -0800

Dirk,

> the matching, you still needs means to express requirements.

Here's the requirement:

    The other fundamental function of CAR discovery protocols is that of
    identifying the capabilities of GAARs. The protocol MUST provide
    functionality to allow ARs to discover their GAAR's capabilities.
These
    capabilities MUST be communicated in a secure fashion.

There is not one single mention of the MN in this requirement.

How can you interpret that this requirement does NOT put the AR in
control? This is exactly the message Steve Deering was trying to get
across in the Minne-apple.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:53:56 -0800

Dirk,

Here's the requirement:

            jak