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

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 19:20:59 +0100

| 
| > 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?
| >
| This is a good suggestion. We should give different terms to these two
| kinds of CN.
| 
Agreed:

Maybe CMNN is a bit long. Could we call these guys Mobile Correspondent
(MC), so we would have MCN and MCR type of nodes?

Pascal

---

From: Christophe Janneteau <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:42:37 +0100

Hi,

About the terminology: I would prefer CMNN to talk about a node inside a 
mobile network (MNN) which is playing the role of Correspondent Node 
(CN). We would have CLFN, CVMN, CMR...

A MCN (or CMN) could be understoud as a standalone MN that play the role 
of correspondent node, but not necessarily placed inside a moving 
network (i.e. not necessarily an MNN).

Christophe.

---

From: Masafumi Watari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:14:30 +0900 (JST)

Hi,

How about CNN as Correspondent Network Node.
I don't know if we want terms for correspondent LFN and VMN...

CMNN maybe a bit long as Pascal mentioned.

watari

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:42:37 +0100,

---

From: Christophe Janneteau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 04:26:41 +0100

Hi Watari,

Why not! CNN is less explicit about the fact that the node actually 
belongs to a "mobile" network, but it is shorter which is a good :)

Christophe.