Subject: [seamoby] reqs draft issue

From: "Gary Kenward" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:17:40 -0400

Description of issue:
The current requirements document uses fixed access network specific 
     terminology. The current requirements document uses fixed access
network specific 
     terminology. 
Submitter name: Gary Kenward 
Submitter email address: [email-masked] 
Date first submitted: June 17, 2001 
Reference:  
Comment type: 'E'ditorial
Priority: '1' Should fix
Section: All
Rationale/Explanation of issue: 
     The current requirements document uses fixed access network specific 
     terminology. In particular, "access router". It is suggested that 
     "access router" and "AR" be changed to "forwarding node" or "FN" as 
     used in the problem statement. Text can be added to the Terminology 
     section explaining the different examples of forwarding nodes. 

     Note: if someone has a better term then "FN", fine. Some consideration 
     for consistency with the problem statement is probably worthwhile, but 
     we should use a term that everyone understands, and is not considered 
     bias.

     I believe that "access network" is still neutral enough to refer to 
     both fixed access networks and all-wireless access networks. However, 
     if there is a better term, this too could be changed.

Requested change: 
     It is suggested that "access router" and "AR" be changed to 
     "forwarding node" or "FN" as used in the problem statement. Text can be

     added to the Terminology section explaining the different examples of
     forwarding nodes.

Proposal 
     See requested change.

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:39:36 -0700

The web site has been updated to reflect this new issue. The issue number assigned
is 1.

Thanks,

PatC

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:10:13 -0700

I would have to agree with this.  I'm trying to think of a situation 
where a FN (as defined below) would not function the same fixed as it 
would being a MN itself, and I can't think of one.

I think this would (should?  Please?) address Phil's issues (which I 
think are valid points about not wanting to limit ARs, as previously 
defined, to fixed, hardwired nodes) which were largely terminology 
related, not a grand conspiracy against MANETs and everything they stand 
for....  :-)   (Just kidding, Phil.  :)

The only thing I request be added is a definition of the term 
"Forwarding Node" and _WHY_ we've made the distinction.  Making sure to 
point out that, in the context of CTP, an FN can be a fixed AR _OR_ a MN 
itself.  But, for the context of this particular CTP session, it's 
acting as an AR.  (Did that make sense?  Too many "context"s..)

-Mark