Subject: [netlmm] #99: Section 4 needs clarification

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:56:52 -0000

#99: Section 4 needs clarification
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                       |      Status:  new                     
 Priority:  major                        |   Milestone:  milestone3              
Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  2.0                     
 Keywords:  PS draft                     |  
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Dan Romanscanu, OPS AD, raised this DISCUSS issue:

 4.      '2)Each WLAN switch vendor has its own proprietary protocol that
         does not interoperate with other vendor's equipment.

         3) Because the solutions are based on layer 2 routing, they may
 not
         scale up to a metropolitan area, or local province.'

 The IEEE 802.1 Working Group published or have in works a number of
 standards that at least according to their claims scale well at or beyond
 metro area limits. Would such protocols meet the needs listed in the
 Problem Statement, or are there specific needs that could be solved only
 by layer three protocols.

 In general I believe that Section 4 could benefit from some editing. After
 listing the problems with the existing solutions, it should rather list
 the requirements of a solution that would fix those problems, rather than
 directly proposing that other solution.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/trac/ticket/99>
netlmm <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/>
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:00:27 -0000

#99: Section 4 needs clarification
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect                       |      Status:  closed                  
  Priority:  major                        |   Milestone:  milestone3              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  2.0                     
Resolution:  fixed                        |    Keywords:  PS draft                
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * resolution:  => fixed
  * status:  new => closed

Comment:

 I spoke with Dan about this in Montreal and explained that the issue
 wasn't scalability of the actual L2 transport but rather of the mobility
 management, IP address resolution, and other IP level issues.

 I also separated out the discussion of the NETLMM architecture from the
 discussion of existing solutions and their problems into a separate
 section, and added a sentence explaining that the goals (i.e.
 requirements) for the protocol based on the architecture are described in
 the REQ draft.

 I need to clear this with Dan, but pending his approval, I will mark the
 issue as fixed and reopen if he wants changes.