Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Dormant Mode Location Tracking by Mobility Protocol Issues

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:07:47 -0600

James, 

>4.7. Independence of Mobility Protocol

   Recognizing that IETF may support multiple mobility protocols in the
   future and that paging may be of value to hosts that do not support a
   mobility protocol, the IP paging protocol MUST be designed so there
   is no dependence on the underlying mobility protocol or on any
   mobility protocol at all.  The protocol SHOULD specify and provide
   support for a mobility protocol, if the Host supports one.

>This requirement was explicitly inserted to accommodate a micromobility
protocol. Also, note that the requirement says "for hosts that do not support a mobility
protocol."

Using the "Independence of mobility protocol" requirement to support "micromobility protocol" does not seem right.

Regards,
Srini

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:26:59 -0800

> Using the "Independence of mobility protocol" requirement to support
"micromobility protocol" does not seem right.

I guess I don't understand this comment, can you explain?

The history of Seamoby is that we have always tried to maintain
independence of mobility protocol on all our charter items. One could
equally well consider using IP paging to encompass GPRS, for example.

            jak