Re:

[Baba S <sbaba@tari.toshiba.com>]

Tim,

Though I may be apart from your original points, 
I'm also interested in Operator's view about for user to cross
(or handoff) between administrative domain in more general sense,
that is even in case of using the same terminal.

I guess it can be OK if the movement occurs among operators which
have a contract with the same "broker" or clearing house.
And I think this scenario could be happen soon, since 
an operator/WISP which has only one 802.11AP inside of his/her
coffee shop and needs a help of cellular service provider to
support roaming PDA is appearing.

Operator's requirement on this may still be "quick and secure
handoff"?

Regards,

baba//


From: "tim clifford" <tjc@lacunanet.net>
Subject: RE: 
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:56:26 -0400

> agreed, actually i think you're on to an interesting requirement about
> awareness of network status, current connection and user authorization.
> however its something i think we need to tease out a bit
> - its not clear this is an operator requirement or at least not exclusively.
> - it seems one would almost certainly be jumping between administrative
> domains, it would be interesting to hear about how operators would see such
> a need as it carries interesting competitive issues
> - i'm always a bit quesy about videophone requirements, its just never
> panned out as anything more than a novelty.
> - it would be interesting to restate this scenario in a generalized way,
> i.e., not audio to video but low bit rate, low packet loss..., to high bit
> rate, higher packet loss, etc. and see if we can create a broader model for
> this "mobility across network and administrative boundaries" requirement.
> has it already been defined?  seems to me MWIF has an implicit assumption
> for such a scenario but i'm not sure we've ever gone throught the mechanics
> 
> tim
> 
>