Re: (virtual) hum on CARD open issues

> > W.r.t. restrictions, this is an experimental protocol, so the draft
might
> > suggest a possible use (CARD right after handover) then suggest this as
an
> > open question, for experimental determination.
> If we consider that the protocol is experimental, wouldn't it be better to
> allow more options for the application of the protocol and let people
figure
> out what's the best way to use the protocol?
> Putting the restriction just for the rate control does not look good to
me.
>

We need to put in what is the concensus of the WG. Concensus right now looks
to restrict it, since you are the only person who has expressed any interest
in not restricting it.

> > A default is necessary,
> > however, and one second seems right to me. It can be changed if the
draft
> is
> > ever advanced to Proposed Standard.
> >
> Again, my point is that a single default value is likely to invalid in
> heterogeneous wireless environment. So the question is how we alllow the
> mobile node to learn the value when it is different from the default
value.
>

Somebody configures it into the wireless device when you buy it or when your
account with the WISP is initiated. The device doesn't have to learn it
dynamically on a case by case basis. This protocol is complicated enough
already, we need to eliminate bells and whistles not put any more in.

            jak