Re: Re: comments on draft-dupont-mobike-transport-00.txt

 > 
>    >    but is the proposal to limit this function to
>    >    those two examples, or be more generic?
>    >    
>    > => the proposal is to do nothing today to solve the issue, i.e.,
>    > to put transport mode stuff out of the immediate scope of Mobike.
> 
>    The draft talks about how MOBIKE can be used with MIPv6 (BU) and SCTP
>    which are both transport mode SAs.
> 
> => perhaps you are confused because you've forgotten that neither MIPv6
> (BU) or SCTP need address changes for these transport mode SAs?
> For instance MIPv6 (BU) uses the home address... And SCTP uses
> different streams for different paths.
> 
I have not forgotten. That is what i understood from "section 3".

>    I don't know where in the document it says
>    that transport mode stuff should be put outside of MOBIKE.
> 
> => the document puts the transport mode stuff outside of MOBIKE.
> Can you propose some text to explain why? (I believe it was known
> but obviously a rationale is needed).
> 
I am fine with the decision. But i don't know what part of your document
says that. You keep saying that you want keep it outside and i thought
your document says so. I could never find it.

>    Also, the charter includes SCTP also.
> 
> => yes and this is a good thing. But the SCTP model doesn't require
> address changes, it only requires multiple integrated address management
> (integrated = as a set vs. one by one).
> 
>    So, are you saying that this should be changed ?
> 
> => no but direct address changes for transport mode are so complex
> that their study should be postponed at least...
> 
What do you mean by "direct" address change ?

thanks
mohan

> Thanks
> 
> [email protected]
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike