[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: how mobile do we want to be
On 23-mrt-05, at 3:07, Thierry Ernst wrote:
You have to drill a bit deeper as mobile phones aren't an application
so it's impossible to determine whether they need layer 4 stability on
top of layer 3 mobility.
I'm afraid I don't understand the comment, but if it's what I think, I
would answer that to me it's pretty clear they need layer 4 stability.
No it's not. The only application I would really want this for is
remote login, but with the right tools reestablishing such a session is
It would be nice to keep a/v streams running when switching
infrastructures, but congestion issues make this very problematic.
I think someone else mentioned one other application that could use
layer 4 stability on top of layer 3 changes, but I can't find this.
Stuff like web and file transfer don't need this capability, and in
mail only downloading large attachments would be helped by it, but
changing the pop/imap protocols can address this just as easily.
I suspect that the "need" for mobility is 99% driven by bell-heads who
still think in terms of services that must provide a seamless
experience to the user. Guess what: the "user" is a big company
building complex software, and if they can handle stuff like this
themselves (for instance, by restarting file transfers after an
interruption) they'll be happy to do so.
I think that the discussion is about putting the right thing in the
charter, so I don't think it's coming at the wrong moment - rather at
the right time, before the WG is approved.
My answer remains the same: "not now". What could go into the charter
about mobility that would be helpful at this point in time? (And "we
need mobility, you guys figure it out!" doesn't qualify as "helpful".)
The wg can always recharter after finishing some specified amount of