Subject: [nemo] RO solution space - CA is Certificate Authority

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:03:13 +0200

Authors of RO solution space draft, thanks for posting it.

I keep reading and find it useful.

I have terminology comments (it's only terminology, not any paramountly
important issue).

CA is established as Certificate Authority, it relates to IP and IPsec,
it's in wide use in an area where I am looking.

Correspondent Agent may not be the right term because it leads to CA
abbreviation.  Somebody else may propose another term, like e.g.
Correspondent Node's Agent, abbreviated into CNA, whose definition could be:

a router at one or few IP hops away from the CN to the Internet,
potentially offering new IPv6 RO mobility services.  This router is much
closer to CN than to MR's home or to any other network that MR visits.
  (Distance between IP entities is preferably evaluated without
mobility-related tunnels.)

Alex

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:13:23 +0800

Hello Alex,

> I keep reading and find it useful.

once again, thanks.

> it's in wide use in an area where I am looking.

Yes, we have the same argument among the authors, and I lost :).  Our
conclusion is that the reader is smart enough to known which CA is
referred to base on the context.

> mobility-related tunnels.)

Hm..., what you defined seems to be what is defined for Corespondent
Router.  What is needed here is an entity that terminates the RO session
(or that stores the binding).  It can be the CR or the CN.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:10:57 +0200

> referred to base on the context.

Chan-Wah, co-authors :-) this is not a matter of winning or loosing.

My own oppinions are not necessarily well grounded and may seem as "just
another oppinion on a topic we've hammered a lot already".

My conclusion is that a writer is smart enough to assume a very dumb
reader and put the least intellectual effort on her/him :-)

The draft has this: "A straight-forward approach to Route Optimization
in NEMO is for the Mobile Router to attempt Route Optimization with a
Correspondent Agent" which abbreviates into "A straight-forward approach
to RO in NEMO is for the MR to attempt RO with a CA" - heavy, what's CA?

Here's another potential intellectually heavy text: MR, HA and CA trust
the same CA so they can securely establish optimal paths.

> (or that stores the binding).  It can be the CR or the CN.

And if I were to wrote "zero or few" instead of "one or few"?

Ok, an entity that can be either a CR or a CN could simply be called CRN.

Alex

---

From: Masafumi Watari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:00:48 +0900

Hi Alex,

> Chan-Wah, co-authors :-) this is not a matter of winning or loosing.

I wasn't involved in that btw ;)

> the same CA so they can securely establish optimal paths.

I see.

> Ok, an entity that can be either a CR or a CN could simply be called CRN.

As in Correspondent Router Node?  I'm not sure...
IF a MN can be either MH or MR, then CN should be either CH or CR.
But we've always used CN as nothing more than CH.  If we re-define
CN so that it can be both CR and CH, would that solve everything...?

Or how about we simply called them "peers" ? or PA: Peer Agent or
NA: Nemo Agent or CE: Correspondet Entity or CP: Correspondent Peer...

watari

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:50:37 +0800

Hello Alex, Watari-san, and all

> I wasn't involved in that btw ;)

:)

> > reader and put the least intellectual effort on her/him :-)

Which is exactly why we follow RFC3963's convention of expanding the
whole terms, and not to use abbreviation.  In normal ML discussion, the
correspondents should know what they are referring to in the context.

> > the same CA so they can securely establish optimal paths.

I know what you are pointing at, in fact the same discussion appeared a
while ago on this same ML.

The way I see it, we just need a term to refer to.  It can be anything,
as long as the readers know what we are referring to.

> > And if I were to wrote "zero or few" instead of "one or few"?

Alex, you can, but there is still the problem of the word "router".  You
have to called it a node, an entity, or something like that.

> CN so that it can be both CR and CH, would that solve everything...?

Nope.  MN and CN are untouchable, set in gold.  You will confuse all
readers who read RFC3775 first (and that's practically the whole IETF). 

That is why I always use MNN, instead of simply MN.

> NA: Nemo Agent or CE: Correspondet Entity or CP: Correspondent Peer...

I would go for Correspondent entity.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:41:46 +0200

>>IF a MN can be either MH or MR, then CN should be either CH or CR.

Right.

> readers who read RFC3775 first (and that's practically the whole IETF).

By 3775 CN is a Node, a Node implements IP so can be either a host or a
router.  People who always assumed that a Node is a Host will be indeed
confused.

>>NA: Nemo Agent or CE: Correspondet Entity or CP: Correspondent Peer...

I could live with PA (with the minor risk of colliding with PANA Agent).

> I would go for Correspondent entity.

I could live with CE Correspondent Entity.

I could live with simply Entity, or simply host, or simply router.

Alex

---

From: Julien Bournelle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:48:32 +0200

Hi alex,

 just a quick recitification to your previous mail:

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:41:46PM +0200, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

<snip>

> I could live with PA (with the minor risk of colliding with PANA Agent).

 The acronym for PANA Agent (in fact PANA Authentication Agent) is PAA
 so no collision.

 Just my 2 cents.

 regards,
 
 Julien

-- 
julien.bournelle at int-evry.fr

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 00:27:31 +0900

> >>>>>CA is established as Certificate Authority, it relates to IP and
> >IPsec,>>>>it's in wide use in an area where I am looking.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, we have the same argument among the authors, and I lost :). 
> >Our>>>conclusion is that the reader is smart enough to known which CA
> >is>>>referred to base on the context.

Before been established as an acronym for "Certificate Authority" CA was
also established as the acronym of a Frenck bank (Credit Agricole) ;-)

I don't think an acronym should be disqualified because of existing
acronyms when the topics are different, otherwise this is a dead end.

If you look around, there are a bunch of similar acronyms and I think
people are clever enough to distinguish between the two particularly
when you can simply instantiate them (write the term in full, only use
the acronyms in un-ambiguous sentences)

My 2 cents,
Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:57:38 +0200

> also established as the acronym of a Frenck bank (Credit Agricole) ;-)

:-) but Credit Agricole doesn't risk being mentioned in the same phrase
with RO, MR, HA, while Certificate Authority does.

> the acronyms in un-ambiguous sentences)

I partially share that view.

Alex