Re: Last Call comment on dmm requirements

Hi Danny,


On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Moses, Danny <[email protected]> wrote:

>  Hi,****
>
> ** **
>
> I am sorry by this requirement sounds to me too generic and limiting. What
> functionality must not be modified? Why?****
>
> I am assuming that the motivation might be related to backwards
> compatibility.
>

No. It is related to the protocol being network based. It does not make
sense to get MN's help in such a protocol, because otherwise it is no
longer network based.

Network based protocols with MN modification blur the difference between
client based and network based protocols.

So everything becomes client based.


> If this is the case, it is already addressed. Furthermore, I do not see a
> reason why not to enable modifications that may enhance performance or
> improve user experience as long as they are optional (hence do not violate
> the backwards compatibility requirement).****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
>                 /Danny****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Behcet
> Sarikaya
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 29, 2013 00:35
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [DMM] Last Call comment on dmm requirements****
>
> ** **
>
> Add this requirement:
>
> R. XX. In network based dmm solutions, the mobile node MUST not be
> modified. No changes on the mobile node behavior can be allowed.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Behcet****
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> A member of the Intel Corporation group of companies
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm