Subject: [Seamoby] Terminology Draft Progress

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:12:50 -0700

So it has come to my attention that some comments were sent to the
author during the Last Call period without the WG chairs or mailing
list being informed. I'd like to remind WG members that comments
should be posted to the list during the last call period so people
have a chance to review them.

I've asked Jukka to incorporate these comments and issue a new
version. I would like to propose that we send the document directly to
the IESG, without going through another Last Call, since no comments
were generated on the list during Last Call on the current version.

            jak

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

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:38:20 +0300 (EEST)

Hi all,

true, I have received one comment, from Randy Presuhn (see Seamoby list on
April 5th), which are very helpful. Still, those were sent prior to the
Last Call, but I did not have time to include those at that time and issue
a new version. Thus, as those are the only comments, I will include those 
into the draft and submit a final version today.

Regards,
Jukka

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:59:35 +0900

Hi,

Thanks for the Mobile Network section update since draft-02. 

A very few comments

> into the draft and submit a final version today.

"Mobile Network Prefix:"

  I don't understand why this is not defined in section 3 (it's not a
  general term, is  it ?). 

"Two subcategories of "Host mobility" can be identified:"

  I think this is not only for host mobility. This could apply for
  network mobility too (take the instance people carry a PAN).

Misc:

  Credits may be given to the NEMO wg for NEMO-related terminology.
  The NEMO terminology draft is not referenced.

Thierry.

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:05:58 +0300 (EEST)

Hi, some answers below.

>   I don't understand why this is not defined in section 3 (it's not a

JM: all other prefix-terms are in Section 2, thus, for consistency, that 
one was put there, too.

>   network mobility too (take the instance people carry a PAN).

JM: How would you rephrase that? I personally would like to make the host 
mobility part clear and simple. I could add into the definition of network 
mobility something like "Network mobility may also include the two 
subcategories of global and local network mobility.", or something. Let me 
know very soon.

>   The NEMO terminology draft is not referenced.

JM: The NEMO terminology was referenced earlier, since we took terms from 
there. Now, we agreed that the terms included will in the Seamoby 
terminology will be removed from the NEMO terminology, thus, no need to 
reference it.

Regards,
Jukka

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:46:58 +0900

> JM: all other prefix-terms are in Section 2, thus, for consistency, that 

OK. [well, as far as consistency is concerned, grouping it with nemo
terms make sense too :-)]

> > "Two subcategories of "Host mobility" can be identified:"

By the way, indentation is not good here:

Two subcategories of "Host mobility" can be identified:

     Global mobility

     Local mobility

     Macro mobility

     Micro mobility

     Network mobility

-> Looks like network mobility is a sub-case. You may add one more tab
before Micro/Macro if you keep your structure.

> subcategories of global and local network mobility.", or something. Let me 

Understood, simplicity is important, but for me there is no difference
between host mobility and network mobility as far as micro/macro is
concerned. So, to me it looks simpler to put both at the same level, and
then define the subcategories.

I would have paragraphs in this order:

    Host Mobility
    	....

    Network Mobility
	....

    Two subcategories of mobility can be identified withing either host
    mobility and network mobility:

	Micro
		....
	Macro
		....
    etc.

If you don't agree with my proposition, your proposed sentence is fine with me.

> terminology will be removed from the NEMO terminology, thus, no need to 

True that it will be removed from draft-NEMO.

But you have sentence "Some definitions of terminology have been adapted
from [1], [7], [3], [2], [4], [9], [10], [11] and [12]", so why not add
NEMO here ? If the reason is not to refer work in progress, it doesn't
hold, as there is many i-d in the reference section.

I think something loose like "a more detailed network mobility
terminology is defined in"  other_document | NEMO WG | draft-nemo could
appear in the mobile network section because it keeps people aware that
more detail document exists.

[Note I won't be eager about all of this. Just propositions].

Anyway, good work, and many thanks for puting all terminology together.

Thierry

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:56:03 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

I'll try to make the changes as you suggest. My point in not referencing
the NEMO terminology drafts was that the definitions in this draft will
not appear in the NEMO documents, and thus, it can not be referenced for
those terms. Still, I can add a pointer to the NEMO terminology as
indication of where to find more terminology for that area.

Regards,
Jukka

ps. A new final version will come out today if all goes well.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:19:19 -0700

Yes, this is the right course. There should be no duplication in
terminology between the Nemo draft and this one, and both should
reference the other for terms that are not included. The reference
should be in the non-normative references section, because this draft
will likely go to RFC first.

Or is the Nemo draft far enough along that it is also ready to go to
RFC?

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:17:46 -0700

Thierry,

Is the Nemo terminology draft also a WG item that is intended to go to
RFC?

If so, does it contain anything that is duplicate with this draft?

            jak

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:14:49 +0900

> James:

Hi James,

At San Francisco, it was decided that the NEMO terminology draft would
be revised and published as NEMO WG item. I think the draft is close to
completion, but I would prefer waiting for the output work of our basic
support design team who might well recommend addition of new terms.

I'm due to submit the new draft this week  (well, I hope)

Thierrry.

-- 

Thierry Ernst, WIDE at Keio University, Japan
E-mail: [email-masked]
Web: http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/
--
Jun Murai Lab, Keio University
Faculty of Environmental Information,
5322 Endo, Fujisawa-shi, Kanagawa 252-8520, Japan.
Phone : +81-466-49-1100
Fax   : +81-466-49-1395