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

Anthony,
     That's fine.

Regards,
Brian

On 1/30/14 1:46 PM, h chan wrote:
> The reason for this requirement is that in some existing mobility
> management deployment, in order to support those applications that
> does need network-layer mobility support, the mobile host uses HoA so
> that all the applications must use the HoA. Then it does not make it
> possible for an application to not use HoA.
> 
> So the bottom line in this revision is that the DMM solution only
> allows the possibility of not using the network-layer mobility
> support.
> 
> How to make use of this possibility is now not a part of this
> requirement. Therefore the requirement should avoid implication of
> such mechanisms.
> 
> When we called "when needed", there may be implication of a mechanism
> to determine/convey the need.
> 
> When we call it "invoke", there may be implication of a mechanism to
> invoke.
> 
> Let me try the following:
> 
> REQ2:  Bypassable Network-layer mobility support
> 
> DMM solutions MUST enable network-layer mobility but it MUST be
> possible to bypass it.
> 
> (plus other sentences on the need and the no need to serve as
> explanations only to justify the above)
> 
> H Anthony Chan
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Brian Haberman
> [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014
> 8:02 AM To: h chan; [email protected] Subject: Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation:
> draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
> 
> Hi Anthony,
> 
> On 1/29/14 1:51 PM, h chan wrote:
>> Brian,
>> 
>> The requirement is intended to include a capability of not using 
>> network-layer mobility management, as opposed to using it by
>> default.
>> 
>> 
>> I think it is sufficient to leave to the explanation (the sentences
>>  after the first sentence) to say that network-layer mobility
>> support is not always needed in order to justify this capability.
>> 
>> The alternative then is to say that network-layer mobility is
>> provided but it is possible to not use such support.
>> 
>> REQ2:  Using and not Using Network-layer mobility support
>> 
>> DMM solutions MUST enable network-layer mobility but it MUST be 
>> possible to not invoke it. Mobility support is needed, for example,
>>  when an application or a host cannot cope with a change in the IP
>>  address when a node moves. Yet a mobile node can often be
>> stationary, and mobility support can also be provided at other
>> layers. It is then not always necessary to maintain a stable IP
>> address or prefix.
>> 
>> Of cause "enable" does not mean it must be used. Yet explicitly say
>>  "it is possible to not invoke it" is to draw the contrast to using
>> it by default.
> 
> My only concern is that it is unclear *who* invokes the network-layer
> mobility support.  Is it envisioned that the application can signal
> the need for mobility support?  Does the user have to configure which
> applications get support?
> 
> 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

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS6taYAAoJEBOZRqCi7goq78AH/jZbZESQm12a9jfhVjVvoSzF
6L2qGDqZnwz/Eh/F4dL6xXv3UfflESaGyx+g8z0hoHq0UeDB3L2Z67irNbOJ3C1S
P3LNjXENjbPYUeKj922M44t61s/XTLFkbWvoPn0ADh49tUyPVSzJK+gNkIMSPp5o
n1Whs9EVU/34LNJeBn3QJKCZUbj3qmNxRMDN3xXFELFMhmFIN+kfunJzcplk53gl
kuFZWQGzK9gE2ip/LZMfXtlnyEhfg1bQJSRnJdyyyRsxnqAAYVTVXAyMoT9tZZyg
IL2JrAFSx6alITNP+0Kfoaes1KVDI4WY+QoVAGR08kq26LN0RtiJ/2w5LrAwg3o=
=ckr0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----