Opened 13 years ago

Closed 13 years ago

Last modified 12 years ago

#39 closed defect (wontfix)

Mention or use academically developed protocols for NETLMM

Reported by: kempf@… Owned by: kempf@…
Priority: minor Milestone:
Component: nohost-req Severity:
Keywords: REQ draft Cc: netlmm@…

Description

Jukka Manner:

  • Sec 2.10: This should also propose to make use of solution in the research and academic community, and what the IRTF micro mobility RG managed to document.
  • Sec 9.4. for goal #9, CIP also supports IPv6, there is an old I-D about it. Also, goal #10 is obviously not met, so this can't be considered as a down side. Furthermore, goal #10 is only a hint, not mandatory.
  • Sec 9.6, related to the above, the table should have an M, and not an X for meeting the goal #10 in micro mobility protocols.

Looking at the table, an obvious choice for the design team is to take an existing micro mobility protocol, and tune it to fit the current requirements. Actually, based on this finding, the design team, and the REQ draft should do a deeper analysis of micro mobility protocols, now only two are analyzed. Are you sure there is no protocol already that would solve the whole problem NETLMM is trying to solve?

Change History (2)

comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by kempf@…

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from new to closed

Suggested resolution:

The NETLMM charter has a particular architecture that the WG has agreed will be used as the basis for developing the NETLMM protocol. While various of the academically developed protocols may meet this architecture to a greater or lesser extent, the WG has now in place a design team that is working hard to come up with a protocol that exactly meets the architecture. The discussion in the REQ draft about other protocols has now become peripheral, this has been recognized by moving the gap analysis to the appendix. Spending a lot of time going through various academically developed protocols and comparing them, while possibly interesting, seems also peripheral to the goals of the WG. The two protocols mentioned and analyzed in the appendix - Cellular IP and HAWAII - are there primarily because they have, in the past, been mentioned as candidates for standardization in IETF. The text should make this clear, and, under another issue, the suggestion was made that Section 9 make clear that the discussion of micromobility protocols in this draft is restricted to Cellular IP and HAWAII because they have been so proposed.

comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by anonymous

  • Milestone milestone2 deleted

Milestone milestone2 deleted

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.