Hi, Laurent:
It is under discussion.
The contributions and explanations have been provided why "Home" is needed in the same context of "Home" domain.
If we do not accept the "home" for GK, zone and home network address, we have serious problems to accept the word "home" in any place of mobility whether it is "home" Adm domain.
I have very a serious objection with your idea that the word home should not be used. If it is so, let us NOT use "home" anywhere in the document.
It is an OPTION to use "home". If anyone does NOT like it, they may NOT use it. Time and again, it has been shown why it is needed.
It will be very difficult to make any meaningful progress unless we are in consistent in defining term terms.
I like to see contributions explaining why "Home" should NOT be used.
Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: Laurent Thiebaut [SMTP:Laurent.Thiebaut@ALCATEL.FR] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:20 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes
My (perhaps wrong) remembering of the result of the discussion is that The word 'home' should not be kept in this figure (strikethrough: is presently to be kept only for the GK and the Zone even though there was discussion to delete this word completely from the figure. The use of this word 'home' may be omitted from the figure altogether after more discussion later. ) Best regards Laurent T.
V Laurent Thiebaut tel: +33 (0)1 3077 0645A L C A T E L e.mail:laurent.thiebaut@alcatel.fr
Guram Paul-LPG019 lpg019@EMAIL.MOT.COM on 18/04/2000 02:15:42
Please respond to Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
cc: (bcc: Laurent THIEBAUT/FR/ALCATEL)
Subject: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes
Hello mob group
Please find below the notes from today's conference call:
Representatives from AT&T, Intel, Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens,Motorola and Alcatel discussed MD-017 from Radhika Roy (AT&T) at the conf.call. The use of the word 'network' was clarified in that we shall use it in conjunction with addressing, i.e. 'network point of attachment'. Thus the figure 1 in MD-017 is to be modified to reflect this. The word 'home' in this figure is presently to be kept only for the GK and the Zone even though there was discussion to delete this word completely from the figure. The use of this word 'home' may be omitted from the figure altogether after more discussion later. This figure is to be incorporated in Annex H to show the 'intra-zone' communication scenario. The editor, will also consider to add some text to explain the boxes VLF,HLF and AuF, if these are also included in the new version of Annex H. Also from the email discussion and today's discussion the editor will incorporate text (as he sees fit) in appropriate sections of Annex H. The next version of the Annex will show all the new text added by the editor (with suitable revision marks), and indicate at the beginning of the Annex that the text with no revision marks is the only agreed text so far. This is to ensure that readers of the new version are not misled as to which parts of the annex are the agreed text and which are still for discussion. The editor, Jaakko Sundquist, will endeavour to produce this new version one week before the next conference call which is to be on Tuesday 9 May at the same time.
Steve Terrill (Ericsson) will enhance his last contribution MD-016to explain the reasons behind his proposals. Also he will propose/discuss discovery mechanisms for the VLF.
Radhika Roy will produce a contribution to explain why it isnecessary to include the word 'home' in the 'network point of attachment', i.e. explain the 'home network point of attachment'.
Paul Guram will consult Mr Okubo to see if a separate dedicatedreflector can be started for the mobility group's use.
A number of contributions have not been discussed yet due to lackof time. From the material in these contributions, the contributors will make proposals to enhance/add/delete text when the editor submits the new version next time. This would be a better way to progress the work and also ensure that no-one's contribution is inadvertently discarded without discussion.
Paul