Re: Requirements

[grenville armitage <gja@ureach.com>]

I'm not sure I follow your phrase "...talking about more than
a link layer.."  Are you saying the proposed MORE WG is about
more than a link layer, or that wireless Internet is about more
than a link layer? The latter is certainly true, but if you mean
the former then I'm unclear what MORE will contribute
over and above existing efforts to develop IP-level mobility
solutions in the IETF.

cheers,
gja

tim clifford wrote:
> 
> which would seem to imply that we need to try to convince people at the ietf
> (i think its a misnomer to say "convince the ietf") that we're talking about
> more than a link layer, maybe the right term is mobility, or roaming
> services, or disadvantaged user devices, or large populations of always on
> subscribers  ;-)
> 
> tc
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-more@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-more@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf
> > Of James Kempf
> > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:47 AM
> > To: more@ops.ietf.org; jgw@cisco.com
> > Subject: Re: Requirements
> >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > There is no such catalog. In general, IETF has been resistent to
> > making wireless a special category. It is viewed as just another link
> > layer.

____________________________________________________________________
Grenville Armitage                http://members.home.net/garmitage/