[MIP-QOS] Re: MIP-QOS -- Scope of disc ussions

["ext Michael Thomas" <mat@cisco.com>]

ext Murray Philip writes:
 > I think it should be a consideration of any QoS framework as to how it
 > responds if at handover the next connection cannot match the previous
 > guarantee, otherwise we might end up with a period of best-effort
 > service or a lost call.  

   Some would call this a feature, not a bug,
   especially when the result of not moving is
   a dropped call.

   As far as requirements goes, are there any
   cases where this is not purely a local policy
   decision of the mobile node? If there are, then
   there should be a requirement that the mobile
   node be the final arbiter of what is "acceptible
   QoS" based on local policy. Note that this
   may actually be a requirement on MIP/SEAMOBY.
 
 > The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence
 > is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s).
 > For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution, 
 > or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information is
 > prohibited and may be unlawful.

   Can we get rid of this?

	  Mike