Re: brief comparison (was: Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document)

Hello DMMers,

I take advantage of this request to expose briefly a comparison between
the two drafts draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03 and
draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.

The first analyses gaps between DMM reqs and MIP6, MIP6-RO, HMIP,
HAswitch, flow mobility, src adr selection.  Each of these is an actual
mechanism.

The second: although it also lists such mechanisms, it guides the gap
analysis by a few mobility management functions, which are abstracted
out of the existing protocols.  These functions are anchoring, mobility
routing, internetwork location management, location update.

I do have a preference for this latter approach.

However, I also think a refinement of its abstraction is possible.  For
example, there are more functions which MIP6 does and which are not
reflected in the abstraction, e.g. DHAAD.

Also, the route optimization mechanism seems better analyzed in the
former document.

Finally, none of the documents mentions the tunnelling-vs-non-tunnelling
approaches, although the former draft leads indirectly to a location-id
split method (which includes translation in that case, see Liebsch,
translation which is incomplete too because not mentioning the
implemented NPT IPv6 RFC6292) (and non-tunnelling host-based routes are
possible without translation).

That is for discussion only, Subject changed.

Yours,

Alex

Le 19/12/2012 21:25, Jouni Korhonen a écrit :
> Folks,
>
> We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies
> for that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap
> analysis" document to serve as the basis for the future WG document.
> We consider two documents on this topic to choose from:
>
> [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [2]
> draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01
>
> and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_
> for the WG document.
>
> Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing
> list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner
> justification for your selection. The chairs will determine if there
> is (rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed with
> selecting one document against the other.
>
> The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We
> have a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between.
>
> - Jouni & Julien _______________________________________________ dmm
> mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
>