Subject: Re: [nemo] Usage Requirement - Personal Mobile Router

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:41:36 +0100

To all who doubt about adding this line for the consumer electronics: 

If the requirements gathering process is pointless for PMR, why would it
be useful to the automotive and aviation industries ? This discussion is
non-sense, what we agreed is that we need to specify what are the
deployment needs for the identified uses cases (we had 2, now it's 3 use
cases), and those deployments needs can be expressed in terms of
configurations to be supported, RO, multihoming, etc.  

The output of these documents would be a better understanding on which
solutions the NEMO WG should work on (what are the RO needs - not what
are the RO problems since it is already documents) since we don't
already agree on that. Some people may argue that the gathering process
could simply be done on the ML, to which I would argue because - for
instance - people from the automotive industry need a sign from the IETF
in order to get themselves involved with us (traditionaly, they don't
speak up at the IETF, at least so far). And they will (they told me).
So, having a document for each identified use case would serve our case.

Please remember the roots of the requirements gathering process: this
was to make sure that there is a need to work on some of the RO and
multihoming issues.

So, charter wise, we only need to add a line in addition to the 2 use
cases already mentioned.

And, quite a lot of people have said they are willing to produce such a
document for PMR (including Vijay, ChanWah and other people already
involved in NEMO i.e. a good sign that this will move on rapidly). For
the aviation industry, we also have volunteers. For the automobile
industry, no body volunteered on the ML yet (but privately, some people
from the automotive industry have told me that they would do it).

Thierry.

> > > => I can live with the requirements gathering, but I don't 
> > think we should
> > > go beyond that and venture into solutions for specific 
> > markets unless a very
> > > strong case is made. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Fair enough, the idea behind the requirements gathering was to see if
> > NEMO Basic would satisfy the requirements, if not, what needs to be
> > done, and whether is it worth doing.  Sounds okay to you?
>
>=> To be honest it sounds wishy washy to me and for that reason it's hard to
>either endorse it or be against it. It's not clear to me what aspects of the
>requirements we're looking at and what could be specific to those
>deployments. I haven't heard anything concrete to make me think there is
>work to do (which is why you put things in the charter), other than the
>obvious "mobile phones would be a potential user of nemo" but of course
>we've always known that.
>
>Hesham
>
> > 
> > /rgds
> > /cwng
> >

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:04:13 +0100

I think it makes sense to analyze this scenario more deeply and see if 
there are some specific problems to this scenario that impose a 
different solution.
Obviously a possible outcome would be that nothing specific is needed, 
so there would not be need to work any more on this, but i think that 
at this point this is not clear.
Besides there seems to be enough energy on the wg to make such analysis 
and we could have a discussion with better background once a first 
version of the analysis of the problem is written.
Regards, marcelo