RE: Requirements

["Robinson, Richard" <RRobin01@sprintspectrum.com>]

Jim, John, Tim and others,

Sprint PCS is particularly interested in the session mobility requirement
(excerpt below from Paul's draft) - i have a few folks looking at this in
more detail and should be able to get some comments by tomorrow.  There is
an opportunity for a macrocell carrier like Sprint PCS to hook up with
companies (e.g., airports, Starbucks) which provide 802.11 LAN access to
their customers who may wish to transfer sessions between our wireless
packet data network and theirs.

from the draft - " * as a session transfers from an IMT-IS-2000 RAN to an
802.11 LAN 
   via handoff from one access network to another, the wireless 
   Internet framework needs to support session continuity both within 
   the core and in interfaces to other networks. "

more to come . . .

Richard Robinson
Sprint PCS
15405 College Boulevard
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
913.890.4242 (fax 4100)
MS - KSLNXZ0201
rrobin01@sprintspectrum.com


-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:James.Kempf@Sun.COM]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:35 AM
To: James.Kempf@Sun.COM; more@ops.ietf.org; jgw@cisco.com;
tjc@lacunanet.net
Subject: RE: Requirements


Tim,

Good point. This issue has come up in the paging and BURP discussions as
well.
Both are also applicable to the "nomadicity" model, where an IP
host is unplugged from one wired outlet and plugged into another.
So the issue isn't so much wireless (which implies a link layer)
as mobility (which doesn't).

		jak
		



>From: "tim clifford" <tjc@lacunanet.net>
>To: "James Kempf" <James.Kempf@Sun.COM>, <more@ops.ietf.org>,
<jgw@cisco.com>
>Subject: RE: Requirements
>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:23:27 -0400
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
>Importance: Normal
>
>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.
>>
>> 		jak
>>
>> >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:15:34 -0400
>> >From: "John G. Waclawsky" <jgw@cisco.com>
>> >To: more@ops.ietf.org
>> >Subject: Re: Requirements
>> >
>> >Does anyone know if the IETF does an cataloguing of activities
>> with regards to
>> wireless?
>> >For example is there a cross reference anywhere that describes wireless
>> activities going
>> >on in the IETF?  This information would probably be very uesful
>> for the mobile
>> >operators.    Regards  John
>> >
>> >
>>
>