Re: Preferences and Requirements Options (was Re: Proposal to resolve remaining CARD issues)

Marco/Eunsoo,

Can you explain what the exact semantic difference is between these two
options? If it isn't large, then I'd suggest merging them, based on the
premise that "simpler is better"?

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email protected]>
To: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Marco Liebsch" <[email protected]>; "Seamoby"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: Preferences and Requirements Options (was Re: [Seamoby]
Proposal to resolve remaining CARD issues)


>
>
> Eunsoo Shim wrote:
>
> > The MN does not lose connectivity necessarily in the case you described.
>
> what I meant, if there are no candidate ARs, the MN loses connectivity
> eventually.
>
> > However, if the requirements are something in which there is no
flexibility
> > with the MN such as link type, the empty reply means there is no access
> > network supporting the link type. In the case, losing connectivity may
not
> > be unavoidable if the MN keeps moving far from the old access point/base
> > station.
>
> let the MN make the decision, if no CARs can satisfy its requirements.
> and you have the preferences options for the MN to tell the current AR
> what it wants.
>
> Vijay
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>