Re: AW: [nemo] WG: new I-D on HA filtering

Hi Koojana, Thomas, Soliman and all

>> At Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:11:36 +0200,
>> Thomas Noel wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Koojana, All,
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps, we should initiate a discussion in mobile-ip or nemo WG to
>> discuss
>> > >
>> > > about this topic.
>> > >
>> > I Agree with you, we have now several drafts and it will be interesting
>> > to converge towards an unique solution to solve this issue.
>> 
>> Can we discuss filters/policies and multipleCoAs registration separately?

>> IMHO, Multiple CoAs and Flow Distributions should be discussed together. The

>> reason is because once multiple CoAs are available, the natural requirement 
>> that follows would be to use these points of attachments efficiently.

I think we discuss filters/policies and multiple CoAs registration
separately. Because they are independent and separate discussion is
more simple.

The following is example for independency.
1. When CoAs are not changed but filters/policies need to be changed,
   MN want to change filters/policies only.

It is ok for me that multiple CoA registration objects and
filters/policies objects are transfered in the same packet, 
because it is efficient way.
But a discussion of multiple CoAs and filters/policies needs to be
separate.

What do you think?

Regards, 

Ken Nagami