Subject: Re: [nemo] Terminology Update

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 00:49:20 +0900 (JST)

Hi James,

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
> As you may be aware, the Seamoby WG currently has a WG draft on its charter that
> consolidates mobility related terms in the IETF. The draft is meant to be a way
> for draft authors of mobility-related drafts to avoid the extensive terminology
> section at the beginning, and provide a reference to normalize references to
> mobility-related terms.
> 
> Would you be interested in merging your terminology draft in with the Seamoby
> draft? I think it would be extremely useful to have the mobile network terms
> together with the rest of the mobility-related terms.

Personally, I'm not against the idea.

I think there are terms that would be useful to be merged. High levels
NEMO terms like "mobile network", "mobile router" and other like
that. And some terms in your draft are useful for us too.  But, as you
know, NEMO is chartered to produce a RFC about terminology and
requirements. The definitions are in a way implying some de facto
requirements. So, how to draw the line between the 2 ?

What I'm not comfortable with is that the draft you are speaking about
is a draft-seamoby-...  From a NEMO stand point, it's important for us
to keep the control on the definition of terms we use/need. So, if we
come to merge the drafts, how to do so ?

Thierry.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:23:40 -0800

Thierry,

The terminology draft is just in Seamoby because the authors couldn't find any
other mobility related group that wanted to sponsor it. It actually started out
in MANET. I don't think we need get into a turf battle about which WG has
control over the draft. If you want, we can move the terminology draft to NEMO.

The real issues in my mind are whether the NEMO group feels comfortable enough
with the state of its terminology discussion that it wants to incorporate the
terminology, since we would like to take the terminology draft to last call
early next year. If not, then we should keep the NEMO terminology separate.
Additionally, we need to ask whether it makes sense to include network mobility
related terminology into the same draft.

It sounds from your note that the terminology is intertwined with the
requirements, and thus the group is not yet ready to finalize. As for the
usefulness of merging, it sounds as if you feel it would be useful. Perhaps we
ought to wait until we are ready to take the terminology draft to last call,
then check back?

            jak

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:49:51 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

I am the editor of the terminology draft and at this stage I thought that
adding some _basic_ terms about mobile networks was needed. I didn't get
any complaints about it on the mailing list, so I chose to add "Mobile
network", "Mobile router" and MNN with some new wording into the Seamoby
draft - the basic components of your figure 1.

Most of the other terms are already in our draft or defined elsewhere in
the IETF. The prefix terms could be added, if we changed the wording a bit
to reflect a more general concept. Some of the other terms are directly
associated with mobile networks and I left them at this stage.

Regards,

Jukka