Re: [MEXT] Changes in the CNs (was Re: A Proposed Solutionfor AeronauticalRO

["CERASI Eivan" <eivan.cerasi at eurocontrol.int>]

Hi, I have the same understanding of where we are.

Looking back at my notes of the interim meeting in Madrid, we discussed
the CN part under the "solution space".

Maybe, Wes can plan adding some of the below words into a document
update ?

Regards,
Eivan Cerasi

-----Original Message-----
From: mext-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Thierry Ernst
Sent: Monday 14 April 2008 10:32
To: mext at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Changes in the CNs (was Re: A Proposed Solutionfor
AeronauticalRO


Please let me jump in this discussion. I didn't attend last IETF
meetings and didn't follow all the discussion, but to me, what we stand
on is:

1. There is a trade-off between unchanged CNs and NEMO Basic Support
(RFC 3963): NEMO Basic Support has been designed so that CNs (and MNNs,
etc) are left unchanged so that even though the solution is not optimal
there is always a possibility to deal with legacy CNs. So, it is
acceptable to request changes for a RO solution (which MUST NOT prevent
the use of NEMO Basic Support)

2. We have always said that while leaving CNs unchanged is recommended,
it is acceptable to require extended features on the CNs to perform RO

3. If there are 2 solutions of an acceptable quality and one of these is
  keeping the CNs unchanged, that one should be selected.

Regards,
Thierry.

marcelo bagnulo wrote:
>> I'm not against "big" changes in controlled environments as the 
>> aerospace one, but I just  want to know whether those changes could 
>> be made or not.
>>
>>   
>  From what i understand, the question on whether updating CNs in the 
> ATS domain to support nemo RO was explicitly asked several times and 
> the question in all cases was:
> - it may be possible sometimes, but any accetable solution MUST be 
> able to work with unchanged (legacy IPv6) CNs and offloading the nemo 
> RO processing to a proxy box topologically near.
> 
> Wes, is my understanding correct? has this been expressed in the 
> requirements document? would it be in the next version? I think that 
> it is important to nail these requirements down, including all the 
> relevant informaiton there (in particular with respect to this issue 
> which seems very imporntat), cause, if not people working in solutions

> are not able to design properly
> 
> Regards, marcelo
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

____

This message and any files transmitted with it are legally privileged and intended for the sole use of the individual(s) or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by reply and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Any unauthorised use or disclosure of the content of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Nothing in this e-mail message amounts to a contractual or legal commitment on the part of EUROCONTROL, unless it is confirmed by appropriately signed hard copy.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the sender.

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext