Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] comments on draft-ietf-mobileip-lmm-requirements- 00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:35:12 +0300

Hi Hesham,

> - Ch 1: I don't thinkthat not changing the MN was actually a goal. 
>   If we can't change the MN, HA or CN then we can't do anything :)
>   Or did you mean we can add to the MN but not change the existing 
>   behaviour ? I don't really get this line.

I suggested to Carl that he insert some goals into section 1 -
I meant more that we minimize changes to the MN, HA & CN to a
minimum (implementations of LMM enabled nodes shouldn't be
radically changed).  This should be especially true to the CN.
The CN should not care if it is speaking to a vanila-MN or a
LMM-enhanced MN (in my opinion).

> - Ch 3.2.1: In the last line there seems to be an assumption that 
>   LMM agents are communicating with each other. This may not 
>   necessarily be true.

If LMM agents are not communicating with each other, then we
have de-facto replay protection!
 
> - ch 3.7.1: I think this SHOULD be a SHOULD or MUST actually.
>   Supporting FMIPv6 is very important and we shouldn't expect
>   operators to have to choose one or the other. Both should 
>   coexist.

Since your last sentence uses '... should coexist', doesn't
this argue the case for a SHOULD - or do you mean ' ... MUST
co-exist.'

best regards,
John

---

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:40:19 +0200

Hi John, 

> radically changed).  
	=> Maybe the wording needs to be clarified because it 
	doesn't reflect that. I completely agree with minimising 
	the changes and eliminating them for the CN and the 
	HA if possible.

> This should be especially true to the CN.
	=> Sure.

> have de-facto replay protection!
	=> I'm just saying that this is an unnecessary assumption. 
> this argue the case for a SHOULD - or do you mean ' ... MUST
	=> The current requirement says it's a MAY. I think it should 
	be a MUST. Sorry for the confusing statement. 

	Regards,
	Hesham

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:28:25 +0300

Hi Hesham,

> 	the changes and eliminating them for the CN and the 

Sure, what would you suggest?

> 	=> I'm just saying that this is an unnecessary assumption. 

But, if it doesn't place a useless burden on an implementation,
does it matter?

> 	be a MUST. Sorry for the confusing statement. 

I agree.  Fast Handovers & LMM MUST be able to interoperate.

John

---

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:51:48 +0200

> Sure, what would you suggest?
	=> One of the main goals of LMM is to minimise the impacts 
	on IPv6 and MIPv6 in general. As such, the protocol extensions
	should aim at limiting the changes to the MN.

	Something like that, it's not a major issue really, just the previous 
	wording seemed like it was suggesting that no changes should 
	be made to the MN.

> But, if it doesn't place a useless burden on an implementation,
	=> It doesn't matter,  it's just irrelevant in a requirements 
	document to discuss what the solution will look like. 

	Hesham