[Mipshop] RE: [netlmm] Re: FW: Last Call: 'Goals for Network-based LocalizedMobility Management(NETLMM)' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req)

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com>]

Jari,

I am sorry that I am just catching this now, but I have three
comments on the document; one general and two specific:

1) (general) The document is too wireless-centric. The goals
should not rule out wired link technologies. E.g., if I pick up
my wired-line laptop and move it to a wired link in a conference
room it should still be able to use the same IP addresses and/or
delegated prefixes via NETLMM. Similarly, if the campus network
is reconfigured such that my stationary wired-line laptop "moves"
to a new access router, the reconfiguration should be seamless
via NETLMM.

Specific suggestion is to simply relax phrases such as "wireless
link handover" (change to "link handover"), "wireless link layer"
(change to "link layer"), "wireless link protocol" (change to
"link protocol"), "wireless IP network deployments" (change to
"IP network deployments"), etc. Where it makes sense to talk about
aspects of specific wireless access technologies, that is fine.
But, in other places that talk about links/networks/etc
generically, "wireless" should be relaxed.

2) (specific) Section 2.3, final paragraph, change occurrences of
"IP address" to "IP addresses and/or delegated prefixes". (There
may be other examples of this in the document.)

3) (specific) Section 2.6, second to last paragraph, change the
phrase "ruling out mobile node involvement" to "minimizing mobile
node involvement" for consistency with Section 2.8.

Fred
fred.l.templin at boeing.com   

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net] 
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 6:56 AM
To: Mipshop; Mobile IPv6 Mailing List
Cc: netlmm at ietf.org
Subject: [netlmm] Re: FW: Last Call: 'Goals for Network-based
LocalizedMobility Management(NETLMM)' to Informational RFC
(draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req)

Reminder: Last day of the Last Call period.

Jari Arkko wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>NETLMM WG has produced a document that outlines the
>goals for a local mobility management solution. It also
>analyzes the fullfillment of those goals wrt existing global
>mobility management protocols (Mobile IPv6) and local
>mobility management solutions (e.g., HMIPv6).
>
>It would be valuable to get additional review from the
>MIPSHOP and MIP6 WGs regarding the latter part.
>The gap analysis in Section 8 of the document.
>
>The best place for follow-ups is probably the NETLMM list,
>though as always you can also send last call comments to
>the IETF main list or the IESG directly.
>
>  
>
>>The IESG has received a request from the Network-based Localized
Mobility 
>>Management WG to consider the following document:
>>
>>- 'Goals for Network-based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM) '
>>  <draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req-04.txt> as an Informational RFC
>>
>>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
>>iesg at ietf.org or ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2006-08-25.
>>
>>The file can be obtained via
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req-04.tx
t
>> 
>>    
>>
>
>  
>


_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmm at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop