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

The Requirements sub-option is used to filter out the CARs to be included in
the Reply.
For example, it can say " CARs supporting 802.11b interface". Then the
current AR puts CAR information satisfying the conditions (requirements). It
is useful since any CAR that does not support the link types available for
the MN should not be included in the Reply. Since the current AR does not
know what link types are available for each MN, it is the MN that should
tell the current AR about them.

The Preferences sub-option is used to filter out the attributes to be
included in the Reply.
For example, it can say "link types, supported IP versions, authentication
protocols". Then the current AR puts those attributes among all the
capability (attributes) of the CARs. That is, the Reply does not contain
"cost = free" of the CARs but it can contain information such as "link type
= 802.11b, 802.11g" "supported IP versions = ver4, ver6", "authenticated
protocols = RADIUS" for each CAR entry.

So the two sub-options are for independent filtering of the CAR information.
One cannot replace the other.

Also, merging the two sub-options does NOT make anything simpler. Rather, it
makes the sub-option more complex to decode.

Eunsoo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Kempf" <[email protected]>
To: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email protected]>; "Eunsoo Shim"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "Marco Liebsch" <[email protected]>; "Seamoby"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Preferences and Requirements Options (was Re: [Seamoby]
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
> >
>
>