[Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents

["Teco Boot" <teco at inf-net.nl>]

Hi,

I reread RFC2501 and I think this document is still valid. It describes
characteristics of MANETs and MANET links in detail. Both Autoconf documents
refer to it. Maybe refer more explicitly to it?

When looking at RFC4861, I think a MANET link may have all described link
type properties. MANET links may be P2P or multi access, broadcast or
non-broadcast, shared or non-shared, can have fixed or variable MTU and may
have or may not have asymmetric reachability. In short, nothing is planned
(ad hoc) and nothing is stable (mobile).

There was posted comment on using term MANET Interface for text that was
about links. This is still not corrected in the active MANET-Arch document.
I think we should try to line up MANET-Arch and PS with RFC4861 as soon as
possible, with ref to RFC2501 when applicable.

On lining up the documents: parts of the architecture is in the PS document.
I see no reason that section 3. MANET Categories is not part of MANET-Arch. 
Same comment on section 2. Terminology; information is split in the two
documents. I see no reason for this split.

A while ago, we discussed an scenario with ad hoc classical, symmetric
reachability links only. This could be an important, e.g. supporting plug
and play consumer and business gadgets with for example mix of Bluetooth,
USB/WUSB, WiFi, WiMAX and 3G technology. MIP6 and NEMO are related to this
scenario, but this will only work when HA is reachable, e.g. Subordinate
MANET. I am not sure MEXT addresses all requirements, especially when a
MANET routing protocol is introduced for supporting disconnected operation
and RO within the topology (Nested NEMO RO). The question is, shall we work
on this scenario? If yes, it must be included in our documents.
 
Teco.


_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf