Re: Questions on the Draft

["John G. Waclawsky" <jgw@cisco.com>]

James, I noticed that the draft seems to lack specific requirements for the
possible role of  the mobile stations to aid remote and distributed
management of themselves, networks and services For example, the ability to
load a new application on the MS or a new TCP stack or dynamically change
the operating parameters of OS functions or TCP stack (e.g. change the TCP
window size to allow for different serve levels, dynamically adjust RTTs,..
etc.). This might be included under other topics but you may want to
specifically spelling out requirements in this area.      Regards  John

James Kempf wrote:

> With the exception of a few "why are we here?" emails, this list has
> been pretty dead.
>
> Here's a couple of questions that came up when I was reading the draft.
>
> 1) pg. 6 What is meant by "hierarchical mobility management"? Is this
> like BGP routing hierarchies, or using OSPF for a local routing domain
> and BGP on the Internet? I'm having trouble fitting this into mobile
> IP,  but perhaps it doesn't fit.
>
> 2) pg. 7 The Auth/Auth sections seem to be getting at single sign on.
> Is that what's wanted?
>
> 3) pg. 7 The Accounting section doesn't mention either of the two
> accounting protocols, Radius or Diameter. Since this document is
> meant to be foward looking, probably Diameter should be favored.
>
> 4) pg. 8 Do you want to be able to charge on packet content? This
> could result in *very* slow performance in some cases, if you
> need to snoop through to L4 to determine the port number.
>
>                 jak