RE: Review of draft-ietf-semoby-card-protocol-02.txt
Henrik Petander <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.seamoby |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Marco Liebsch wrote: > I also agree to make it MAY and would not like to see it out of the > document. It's experimental and might be implementaed to study whether > or not there is any benefit. Yes, I agree with this argument, since the draft is going to experimental RFC status. > However, with regard to the argument > to implement inter-AR signaling failure recovery to not rely on > MN-AR recovery via air-link and mainly save scarce radio bandwidth, > this works only in case the inter-AR > timeout is much less than the MN-AR timeout, right? Yes, the inter AR timeout should be smaller than the MN - AR timeout. You should also decide whether to declare the signaling as a failure to MN. Henrik ---------------------------------- Henrik Petander Helsinki University of Technology, GO/Core Project [email protected] Office: +358 (0)9 451 5846 GSM: +358 (0)40 741 5248 ----------------------------------