Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] 3Gwireless-ext-04

From: "Lipford, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:56:35 -0500

Fully concur
Mark A. Lipford

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
                Sent:   Monday, August 21, 2000 9:51 AM
                To:     [email-masked]
                Subject:        Re: [MOBILE-IP] 3Gwireless-ext-04

                I believe that one of the co-authors has stated that they
are willing to
                update the document to address the objections that were
raised. The co-author
                also has a very valid point, IMHO.

                One of Charlie's objections is that the draft should rely on
the techniques
                described in the Route Optimization I-D. One of the
problems, of course, is
                that the Route Optimization I-D hasn't really been going
anywhere for some
                time, so imposing that the 3G draft (and possibly all future
handoff work)
                depend upon the R.O. draft, may not be wise.

                Perhaps the R.O draft could be split into two. Some basic
non-controversial
                functionality could perhaps be moved into a separate draft,
and this is the
                draft the 3G draft would rely upon. The more controversial
portions of the
                R.O. draft would be separated, and would not hold any future
handoff work up
                in the WG.

                Comments?

                PatC