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

From: "Govind Krishnamurthi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:03:48 -0500

James,

>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.

[Govind] There is a bias and I agree that the bias should be removed.

But
what you are suggesting is to swing the pendulum to the opposite end
putting an MN bias. We should work toward an un-biased set of requirements, 
IMHO, and thats what I will endeavor to do based on the discussions in the 
mailing list.

Regards,
Govind.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

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

---

From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:27:57 +0100

> IMHO, and thats what I will endeavor to do based on the discussions in the 

Yes, yes! 

	That is what we are suggesting! That there *needs* to be a bias
towards the MN, that whatever we design which does not give this to the
MN will not provide the User with what he wants and needs, and ultimately won't
be deployed and used.

	I thought Steve was so clear in Minneapolis, and the case so clear as
well, that I did not expect this resistance.

	Regards,
		Henrik

---

From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:27:57 +0100

Yes, yes! 

	Regards,
		Henrik

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:23:07 -0800

Govind,

We have to think about what the requirement is intending to accomplish.
If we don't mention that, then the requirement becomes meaningless. The
intent is to get the MN the information it needs to select the next AR.
Thus, I believe we must mention the MN.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Govind Krishnamurthi" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Concensus call on new CAR Discovery Requirement
(was: Examples of

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:23:07 -0800

Govind,

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Govind Krishnamurthi" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Concensus call on new CAR Discovery Requirement
(was: Examples of