Re: Last Call comment on dmm requirements

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Peter McCann <[email protected]>wrote:

> This is not the netlmm working group.  Client modifications are very
> much in scope.
>
>
Who said so?

The chair is not saying it.

I would stay away from making big statements.


> I think that mobile nodes will at least need to be enhanced with more
> flexibility about the way they handle assigned addresses.  The scope
> of mobility for a given address may be limited or it may cost resources
> to extend the scope too far with network-based means.  The MN must be
> allowed to monitor its applications' use of IP addresses and release
> those addresses that are no longer used, and get a new IP address for
> new application connections.  This does not necessarily involve a new
> protocol for the MN but is a modification of its usual behavior.
>
>

Then let's not call such a protocol network-based :-).



> -Pete
>
>
> Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> > 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