Req Document comments
Hi Eric:
"Section 1 (overview) says :
A Higher Layer MP e.g. Mobile IP shall be supported for handover and seamless
session continuity
It does not sounds a very good idea to refer to Mobile IP, even if it is
referred to as an example. So often in specifications, such examples end being
inconscious reference model people stick at. Why shouldn't we restrict ourselves
to saying A Higher layer mobility protocol. What people should have in mind is
that .21 will have to operate even if the mobility management no more happen to
be made at the IP layer!!!"
I thought we agreed in Anaheim that a higher layer for mobility is assumed. I
don't suppose you are proposing to incorporate mobility mechanism at layer 2, do
you?
Assuming mobility management is a higher (than layer 2) entity, then we also
agreed in Anaheim that using MIP as an example of such higher entity is
acceptable.
Peretz Feder