17 April Mobility Conf call notes

[Laurent Thiebaut]

I support Jaakko's comments:
   the notion of Home is needed (at least for subscription information storage and for central place that knows which GK/VLF is currently hosting an user: HLF )
   In some configurations, service needs to be executed in the Home domain. This does not mean that it has to be executed in a Home CSCF
   It is not contributions telling "what terms SHOULD NOT be defined", but contributions telling "why some terms SHOULD be defined" that are needed.
     Best regards
        Laurent T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      V    Laurent Thiebaut      tel: +33 (0)1 3077 0645
A L C A T E L                    e.mail:laurent.thiebaut at alcatel.fr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------




Jaakko Sundquist <jaakko.sundquist at NOKIA.COM> on 18/04/2000 16:06:17

Please respond to Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 <ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com>



 To:      ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com

 cc:      (bcc: Laurent THIEBAUT/FR/ALCATEL)



 Subject: Re: 17 April Mobility Conf call notes






Hi Radhika & Laurent,

See my comments embedded...

>
> The contributions and explanations have been provided why
> "Home" is needed
> in the same context of "Home" domain.

The Home Administrative Domain came about because it seemed a good idea to
bind the subscription of a User to some administrative entity (such as an
operator). At the same time we have defined the HLF as the only place in
which location information about the user can always be found (albeit
clearer definitions about this information are still needed). Thus the
domain containing the HLF of the user was in effect defined as the Home
Administrative Domain of the user.

>
> 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 do not follow your reasoning above at all. Concidering a home GK or zone,
I can understand that they may be needed if the service execution is done in
the "home" of the user, i.e. all calls for a user would be controlled by the
same GK, namely the home GK of the user. For service execution in the
Visited Administrative Domain, I do not see any reason, why the concept of a
home GK would be needed. Furthermore, if a concept is not definitely needed,
I will not want to define it. I also feel we need to examine and define the
"service execution in the home environment" or "virtual home environment"
model better, so that everyone understands, what it is all about.
As for the need for a home Network Point of Attachment, I am waiting for
your contribution that clarifies, why we would need it.

>
> 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.

The point is that so far, if I understand Laurent correctly, neither he or I
have accepted the concepts of home GK or home Network Point of Attachment.
Those are the terms that we would not like to see in the picture.

>
> 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.
>

I do not want to see contributions telling what terms SHOULD NOT be defined,
I want to see contributions telling why some terms SHOULD be defined. So far
I haven't seen such contributions on home NPoA and I'm still not sure about
the home GK either.

-Jaakko