> I have seen Charlie pull out the terminology draft at least a 
> few times! :-)  Why can't 
> some WG chair in SeaMoby or MANET adopt it as WG draft?

I cannot see this being a MANET draft, far too many non-MANET concepts
involved.

As far as Seamoby effectively bridging between MIP and MANET, it seems
reasonable.  IMO the best-baked architectural notion within Seamoby is the
notion of an AR, its discovery and possible subsequent CT between ARs.  The
AR stands at the edge of a domain, and mobile hosts (MIP) or routers (MANET
or MONET?) seeking access to the domain do so via an AR...the AR and
consequently Seamoby forms a natural bridge.

As for the terminology draft, if included in Seamoby, IMO it needs to be
simplified and clarified big time.  For example, it needs deletion of
irrelevant/unclear IP architectural elements (e.g. APs, ANs, ANRs, ANGs) and
all references thereto/implications thereof. 
* APs are layer 2 elements (need I say more?)
* Access Network Routers (ANR) are IP routers (presumably fixed)...Are these
notably different from non-access network routers?  Perhaps they run a
different routing algorithm, but what of it?  Perhaps they do not!
* Moreover, what is an Access Network?...the doc says it's an IP network
full of ANRs?  This is a bit circular!  If the ANRs are normal IP routers
(and they well could be), then the definition of the AN is completely and
suddenly vacuous...POOF!!! ;-)
* Access Network Gateway (ANG) is just another name for a gateway router.

To my way of thinking, at IP such an "access network" is just a routed
domain, accessed at the edge via access routers and interfaced to the core
thru some gateway router functionality.  No new terms are (yet) needed.  If
you think differently, either you have truly invented something new and I'd
love to hear about it, or you are probably too buried in L2 specifics to see
clearly. ;-)

My 2 cents...for starters, just delete the whole notion of an Access Network
until this can be meaningfully defined at IP layer and differentiated from
existing IP terminology.  Presently, whereever the text addresses the issue
of an "access network", the related definitions (e.g. relating to handoff)
break down as they implicitly assume certain L2 architectures and
capabilities.  These assumptions do not apply in the general case of IP
mobility or hold for all L2 technologies.  There's plenty more that could be
said as well.

But, without wasting more time, on the whole I think this document is mostly
a waste of time.  Whilst specific terminology drafts may be of value (such
as the recently suggested MIP/Security Terminology harmonization draft), IMO
these all-things-to-all-people drafts try to overreach and are generally not
worth bother.

-Scott

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby