Re: AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements

On 1/28/14 4:33 PM, h chan wrote:
> Regarding the following:
> 
> - What is meant by co-exist in REQ5?  Does this mean that a DMM solution does not break an existing one?  Or does it mean that it must inter-operate with existing ones?  Is this like IPv4 and IPv6 being incompatible, but can run concurrently on the same network?  Or does this mean there needs to be some mechanism for interaction (i.e., like NAT64)?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the bottom line is that the existing ones do not break.
> 
> 
> 
> Original
> 
>    REQ5:  Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts
> 
> 
> 
>           The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing
> 
>           network deployments and end hosts.  For example, depending on
> 
>           the environment in which DMM is deployed, DMM solutions may
> 
>           need to be compatible with other deployed mobility protocols
> 
>           or may need to co-exist with a network or mobile hosts/routers
> 
>           that do not support DMM protocols.  The mobile node may also
> 
>           move between different access networks, where some of them may
> 
>           support neither DMM nor another mobility protocol.
> 
>           Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across different
> 
>           networks, possibly operated as separate administrative
> 
>           domains, when allowed by the trust relationship between them.
> 
> 
> 
> We can change to:
> 
>    REQ5:  Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts
> 
> 
> 
>           The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing
> 
>           network deployments and end hosts without breaking them.  For example, depending on
> 
>           the environment in which DMM is deployed, DMM solutions may
> 
>           need to be compatible with other deployed mobility protocols
> 
>           or may need to co-exist with a network or mobile hosts/routers
> 
>           that do not support DMM protocols.  The mobile node may also
> 
>           move between different access networks, where some of them may
> 
>           support neither DMM nor another mobility protocol.
> 
>           Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across different
> 
>           networks, possibly operated as separate administrative
> 
>           domains, when allowed by the trust relationship between them.

The "without breaking" is fine.  However, the "need to be compatible
with" phrasing is still problematic.  Is that inferring that in some
situations that a DMM solution would need to interact with, for example,
PMIP?

Regards,
Brian

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS6QmmAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqxO0H/iP8s+LMwrUR/HcJGSYvvkN6
5Wr8MiuLqqCDTtx/iA3wQZNz5wuEz4qkfho00Z/QWIiWgqpAC9K9wD+WLCwBXHY7
QOB7t5E5ye0+npTCNpKWp1arOL1m+tqdsgJnQPXQjY8SABmAT+b2GF/dM5Q6fLRe
h3/Yvs8556LvrBjzMyGJkGJsOEXwQ1zV4ydDZH+87FoKLlkBoyl7t7GQ0qEznG3o
KLOa1ln6LMbkH1gcRu7CrFaAoBHGZz5ftLthaNh4IonQTpXoN62NoFIk5zS2vEQG
RqCr/7RLcIzAkYpCSqHKcrVZrixDs8ee0J2KRdOc1A24L+sUQJfPOqze+9ztoO4=
=nSi5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----