Subject: [Seamoby] Next Steps for the terminology draft

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:29:12 +0300 (EEST)

Hi all,

	So far I have seen only one comment to the terminology draft, to 
replace our proposed definition of "Routing Proxy"

"A node that routes packets by overlays, eg. by tunneling, between
communicating partners and without doing any non-routing related
processing. The Home Agent and Foreign Agent are examples of routing
proxies, in that they receive packets destined for the mobile node and
tunnel them to the current address of the mobile node."

	with the following:

"Routing proxies are the network nodes that receive datagrams, decide
based on a lookup to which server to forward the datagram. The forwarding
is stateless."

	I would keep the existing definition... it says a little more.

	In addition, we had the following TODO items mentioned in the 
draft:

1) Add basic terminology about mobile networks. 

Question: what terms should be considered?

2) Add more terms, eg. MPR (Multipoint Relay), "Reverse Routability", BU, 
FBU.

Question: would these be needed? What else?

3) Compare to the definitions in FMIPv6 (and other MIP drafts) and add 
missing parts.

Question: This draft does not have any mention of various care of
addresses, should it? What else?

4) Compare against definitions in the LMM documents of the IRTF MM-
subgroup (taxonomy draft expired).  See if there is some harmonization to
be done. Can be found at: 
http://www.yegin.org/alper/draft-irtf-mm-taxonomy-00.txt

Question: is there something someone would like to have in the Seamoby 
terminology draft, to better cover the world on IP mobility?

5) Re-write the Network Components section

Question: How should the present version be changed?

	We would like to get the comments from the Working Group this
week, so that we may prepare a new version for Atlanta.

	Regards,

	Jukka

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:44:00 +0200

If the intention is to use HAs as examples of routing proxies then I 
don't think we can say that they are stateless. 
 
Hesham

-----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 5:24 PM
To: Jukka MJ Manner
Cc: Seamoby Working Group
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Next Steps for the terminology draft

Jukka, what about:

Routing proxies are the network nodes that receive datagrams, decide

is stateless.

The Home Agent and Foreign Agent are examples of routing

proxies, in that they receive packets destined for the mobile node, do a lookup in the binding cache and

tunnel them to the current address of the the correct mobile node.

This would clarify forwarding by tunneling and other concepts.

Regards, 

Jukka MJ Manner wrote:

	Hi all,

	with the following:

is stateless."

draft:

FBU.

missing parts.

http://www.yegin.org/alper/draft-irtf-mm-taxonomy-00.txt <http://www.yegin.org/alper/draft-irtf-mm-taxonomy-00.txt> 

	Regards,

	Jukka

-- 

Behcet