Re: on the point of mobility & multihoming

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


(chair hat off)
	John,

I would argue the same. I think that it's to early on in the process in 
order to try and think of overlaps or additional usage for the 
proposals. I would like to argue that we solve this step by step and 
concentrate on the multihoming approach. The mobility aspect is a "nice 
to have", but let's look at that later on.

Best regards,

- - kurtis -

On 2004-03-03, at 03.35, <john.loughney@nokia.com> wrote:

> From today's session, Dave & Geoff discussed multihoming vs. mobility. 
>  In
> a working group I chair, we've had similar discussions and from a 
> transport
> layer, maintaining a session during a multihoming change and a 
> mobility change
> can be quite similar.  I second Dave's comment that trying to solve two
> things at once can be never-ending. He also mentioned that solving two
> problems seperately can lead to incompatible or extremely complex 
> solutions
> that don't interoperate well.  Could we restrict ourselves to 
> multihoming,
> but perhaps the authors of the proposals add a section on Mobility 
> Considerations,
> so we don't run into incompatiple solutions?
>
> thanks,
> John
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQEVmaKarNKXTPFCVEQJK4gCdFicVP+wvkhoaYXAlC7LRASTX80IAoMo7
yDY9zay7lsMEGPsoPNe6de4d
=bLTs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----