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

Hi Jouni,

On 1/30/14 7:40 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> 
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>> 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?
> 
> Your observation is correct. Maybe slightly better wording would work:
> 
>    REQ5:  Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts
> 
>          The DMM solution may require loose, tight or no integration into
>          existing mobility protocols and host IP stack. Independent of the
>          integration level, the DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with
>          existing network deployments, end hosts and routers that may or
>          may not implement existing mobility protocols. Furthermore, a DMM
>          solution SHOULD work across different networks, possibly operated
>          as separate administrative domains, when allowed by the trust
>          relationship between them.

I am fine with this formulation.

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

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS66OGAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqVLQIAIHItJlLLhkPuab6mswZoL8H
GRmuN3hvskvHsthVGpkTkfdZuYuDbutX4U4t/IvApfYZ8I3ObgV8LQqKgvx86o8m
4JKToODXwFZtnoHC9FCIlFJmro4AuLdbUnrI5d+hdNPFpzAVnd5LBWhzlYFrf5/R
54XmV453yzmAlwdplLjaePv+h0MdUDeizmit/fa1pOGqS74wSEVrKkSdtCLOBRCg
qHy4evsfUIV7I0ME451lVbkW+Ujmt3aBJleyDiTHisPOy8Jy6FSLl3BLblYHfzmo
JNdwrjgqXmWPvjqiqpkXGSdxuWB1Zl03Yc0fS7v2k8wgdOqURhfDNYYzNhZT1Jw=
=eb5w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----