Subject: RE: [nemo] Preparing NEMO Slot for Vancouver

From: "Narayanan Vidya-CVN065" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 02:24:25 -0400

TJ,

> The key components, in my 
> personal view, would be a core group of some people willing 
> to work on all of the documents, and the consensus of the WG 
> (and ADs, etc) that it's something that we want to keep in 
> the charter and it's proceeding in a reasonable way.
> 

What do you mean by "all of the documents"? If there is consensus to
work on basic support, without having to address other topics that are
not required for basic support, is that not (minimally) enough? 

Vidya

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:03:44 -0700

There would be additional documents. Take a look at the NEMO home  
page and count the documents. There are many drafts there related to  
NEMO (v6), and accordingly, there would be more than one v4 document.  
MIB, network models, security, ... whatever is needed to describe how  
support works in a fully-baked way.

Many of the documents could be shared, so you wouldn't have to repeat  
existing work, but some of them don't translate to v4.

TJ

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:17:19 +0200

T.J. Kniveton wrote:

> NEMO (v6),

I agree, I believe there are at least three documents about IPv4 moving
networks: DSMIPv6, draft-shima-nemo-v4prefix-01.txt and
draft-leung-nemov4-base.

The first two try to build IPv4 moving networks by using MIP6 (instead
of MIP4).  There was some discussion about this recently on MIP6 and
further back on NEMO.

> and accordingly, there would be more than one v4 document.  MIB, 
> network models, security, ... whatever is needed to describe how 

Right, I think we'll see based on interest.

>  existing work, but some of them don't translate to v4.

I agree,

Alex