Re: Last Call comment on dmm requirements

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Yes he is:

Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> The charter makes it clear that solutions that may involve a host
> are within our scope.
> 
> - JOuni

Behcet Sarikaya wrote: 
> I would stay away from making big statements.

I would stay away from making incorrect 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 :-).

There will be a network component and a (possibly optional) client component.
The network component will get you only so far.  Then behavior and/or protocols
on the client will be required.

-Pete