Re: [Mipshop] transient binding draft update

[Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch at nw.neclab.eu>]

Hi Rajeev,

Koodli, Rajeev schrieb:
>  
> Hi Marco,
>
> Thanks for taking input into account. I have a clarification on the
> following:
>
> *  Added note about static implementation specific approach and
> reference
>    to Appendix B to the Introduction.
>
>    "..Some implementation specific solutions, such as static
> configuration
>    and introducing some delays, may help to reduce some issues addressed
>    in this draft, which is discussed in Appendix B.  A dynamic solution
>    by means of the proposed protocol operation helps to optimize the
>    performance for a variety of handover situations and different radio
>    characteristics."
>
> What do you mean by "..introducing some delays,.." in the first
> sentence? 
>   
yes, maybe not precise, but I think your proposal below for a revision 
seems ok

> I can think of buffering, and if you mean the same, could you reword it?
> I also suggest a slight revision of the statement. Something like:
>
> "..Some implementation specific solutions, such as static configuration
> and buffering, can help to address some of the issues identified in this
> draft,.."
>   
Looks ok.

marco

> Regards,
>
> -Rajeev
>
>
>   
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mipshop-bounces at ietf.org 
> > [mailto:mipshop-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marco Liebsch
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 1:56 AM
> > To: Mipshop
> > Subject: [Mipshop] transient binding draft update
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > please find below a list of changes for the transient binding 
> > draft update.
> > Thanks for all comments. We'll post the update in a next step.
> >
> > marco
> >
> >
> >
> >     
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshop at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>