Subject: [Mipshop] The proposal for more generic LMM requirements

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:06:38 +0200

I promised some time ago to produce a set of "trivial"
changes to Carl's LMM Requirements draft, to show that it
is possible to produce a more generic draft that still
essentially has all the same requirements.  Now I managed
to make the most important changes, but unfortunately I
am not able to carefully proof read the result today, due
to personal reasons.

Anyway, the first attempt is available at the URLs below.
Probably the most important one is the first one, which
is an HTML file showing the two document side by side,
with differences highlighted.  Don't get scared awat by
the high amount of difference shown; the actual differences
are small, but the diff algorithm is stupid.  I am sorry
but I don't have any better tool at hand.

http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/MIPSHOP/draft-nikander-mipshop-lmm-goals-00-pre-Nov06-diff.html
http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/MIPSHOP/draft-nikander-mipshop-lmm-goals-00-pre-Nov06.html
http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/MIPSHOP/draft-nikander-mipshop-lmm-goals-00-pre-Nov06.txt
http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/MIPSHOP/draft-nikander-mipshop-lmm-goals-00-pre-Nov06.xml

--Pekka Nikander

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:42:44 -0800

I looked through the diffs and they look fine to me. There are a couple
places where some minor editorial work might be useful.

I've got two comments on substance.

1) The definition of the term "peer entities" doesn't quite match what I
think characterizes the HA in MIP. I would recommend something like
"potential participants in the mobility management protocol", since that is
what is really at issue. The current definition applies to any node
exchanging IP packets with the mobile node, and some of those may not in
fact be participants in the mobility management protocol (for example, a CN
that doesn't implement RO).

2) I still feel the security requirements are inadequate, but I don't
believe that should be dealt with in this draft. However, I do believe the
draft should make clear that more work is required on security, with perhaps
a qualifying paragraph in the "Security Considerations" section to that
effect.

            jak