Subject: RE: [nemo] Review 2 of draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-04.txt

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 19:00:55 +0200

>
>
>on 2005-10-03 18:39 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) said the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmm.  A first try - I'm not sure if this is good language, but at
least
>>>>>I would be able to understand it...:
>>>>>
>>>>>   In order to read this document properly, it is important to
realise
>>>>>   there is a distinction between the concepts of Home Link and
Home
>>>>>   Network.  In a NEMO context these may not at all be equivalent -
>>>>>   quite to the contrary: in NEMO, the Home Network can encompass
much
>>>>>   more than the Home Link, as it spans the Home Link and all the
Links
>>>>>   that the Mobile Routers carry with them.  Exactly how the two
concepts
>>>>>   relate in a given deployment depend on the organization of the
Home
>>>>>   Network, as described below.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> [<PT>]
>>>> What about:
>>>>
>>>>    In order to read this document properly, it is important to
realize
>>>>    That the Home Link and Home Network are not necessarily
congruent -
>>>>    quite to the contrary: in NEMO, the Home Network can encompass
much
>>>>    more than the Home Link, as it spans the Home Link and all the
Links
>>>>    that the Mobile Routers carry with them.  Exactly how the two
concepts
>>>>    relate in a given deployment depend on the organization of the
Home
>>>>    Network, as described below.
>>>
>>>Congruence is clear to me for triangles, but not for networks.  I'd
>>>rather not inflict that upon a reader this early in the text ...
>>
>> [<PT>] We use it in networks, usually when Ipv4 and IPv6 topologies
are
>> exactly overlapping.
>> I'm surprised you did not see it already. Any alternate suggestion?
>
>What about my suggested text above ?
>
[<PT>] Told you, the trouble is the layer violation. A L2 link is
obviously distinct from an L3 network, even if the coincide...

Pascal

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:23:14 +0200

> obviously distinct from an L3 network, even if the coincide...

Yes, agreed - but I don't see the problem?  If the text had said 'the
same', or 'equal', I might be worried, but I think 'equivalent' gives
you the de-coupling needed?

	Henrik