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 18:39:59 +0200

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 6:30 PM
>To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>Cc: Ryuji Wakikawa; Vijay Devarapalli; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [nemo] Review 2 of
draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-04.txt
>
>
>
>on 2005-10-03 17:57 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) said the following:
>>>> [<PT>] The problem that I tried to change was in the comparison of
a
>>>> Link (usually a L2 term) and a Network (usually a L3 term). I
wanted to
>>>> say that in MIP, the Network overlaps with - is congruent to,
whatever -
>>>> the Link. But in NEMO, the network is much wider as it spans the
Home
>>>> Link and all the Links that the MRs carry with them.
>>>>
>>>> Could you then reword a bit?
>>>
>>>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?

>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>> [<PT>] Or we can change the figures to reflect the fact that one is
>>>> config and the other arrangement?
>>>> [<PT>]
>>>
>>>I guess that would be ok.  Although for now I think the simplest
would
>>>be to just refer back to Fig. 2...
>>>
>> [<PT>] I do not have strong feelings on this. If anyone is still
>> listening, can you please provide advice here? Copying Vijay and
>> Ryuji...
>>
>
>

[<PT>]  For the time being I removed the picture. I can easily put it
back if the coauthors disagree with the move.

>
>>>
>>>Maybe some more words are needed to make this clear - could you have
a
>> look
>>>at adding some?
>> [<PT>]
>> [<PT>] What about:
>>
>> Note that this is a hierarchy in terms of MR-HA relationship, which
may
>> not
>> be reflected in the physical arrangement of nodes at a given point of
>> time.
>> For instance, in the Cab Co case, some SFO Cabs might attach to any
hot
>> spot or
>> Cab Co office in a different city, and the SFO office might be at
Home
>> if it is collocated with the Headquarters. But note that SFO might
never
>> attach to
>> one of its own Cabs. This would create a deadlock issue, as
documented
>> in
>> the NEMO RO problem statement.
>> [<PT>]
>>
>> What do you think?
>
>That is basically in the text already - but pointing out the difference
>between attaching with a new CoA and binding, and possibly how this
>would work might be helpful.  The suggested text above didn't give me
>any additional clarity...

[<PT>] Seems I did not understand the question the first time... And in
fact I still fail to see the problem you point out. There's nothing
special in the way the CoA is obtained???

Pascal

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:52:13 +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
>>>>   In order to read this document properly, it is important to realise
>>>>   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
>>>    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

What about my suggested text above ?

> back if the coauthors disagree with the move.

Right.

> special in the way the CoA is obtained???

Hmm.  Skip additional text for now, then - I'll read the revised draft
and see if I can suggest something better when I have the whole text
in front of me.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:45:07 -0700

>>>listening, can you please provide advice here? Copying Vijay and

IMO, having the picture in there does not cause any harm.
if not anything it makes it easier to understand what is
being said in section 6.2.1.

Vijay

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 08:11:54 +0200

Vijay,

> being said in section 6.2.1.

My point was that picture 2 and picture 3 seems to be the same, and
it confused me when reading the document - I wondered why the picture
was there, what difference I was supposed to see.

	Henrik