Subject: Re: [nemo] draft-zhao-nemo-ro-ps-01

From: Masafumi Watari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 06:32:58 +0900 (JST)

Hi Fan,

Just a question, but are the terminoloy listed in the draft necessary
to explain the problems?  I think that we should avoid the use of new
terms to keep the document simple and easy to understand.  Especially
for the terms Inbound and Outbound you've defined them for directions
to and from the "Internet infrastructure," but that may not always be
the case when you have RO.  Therefore its use is limited only under
specific scenarios.

OTOH, I prefer to have a term to refer Correspondent MNNs.  Currently,
they are all refered to as CNs as defined in
draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-03, but the problem greatly differs
depending on their attachment point.  I used nested CNs but does not
sound right either.  Any thoughts?

Also Section 4.2 ends without a period.  Does this sentence continue
on?

watari

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:25:43 -0800 (PST),
"Fan Zhao" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> Dear all,
> 
> We have submitted draft-zhao-nemo-ro-ps-01. 
> It can be found in the following URL:
> http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~zhaofa/NEMORO/
> if it has not shown up in the Internet-Drafts directories.  
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    This document describes the routing optimization problem in NEMO and
>    analyzes the related approaches to solve this problem.
> 
> Your comments are welcome. Thanks.
>   
> Sincerely,
> fan
>