Subject: [netlmm] #80: Change "IP Link" to "IP Domain"

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:57:14 -0000

#80: Change "IP Link" to "IP Domain"
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                       |      Status:  new                     
 Priority:  major                        |   Milestone:  milestone2              
Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  1.0                     
 Keywords:  PS draft                     |  
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Fred Templin suggests:

 6) Section 1.1, the term "IP link" is confusing even if it
 is defined only within the scope of this document. From the
 definitions in RFC2461 and RFC3753, the term "link" is well
 understood and clearly refers to something that occurs below
 the IP layer. (IP-in-IP tunnels can be "links", but that
 doesn't seem like what you are trying to capture here.)

 Suggest using a different term such as "IP domain" defined as:

   "IP domain
     A set of routers, mobile nodes, and wireless access points
     connected by links that share the same IP subnet prefixes.
     This definition covers one or more access points connected
     by one or more links under one or more access routers."

 Suggest also changing the term "IP Link" to "IP Domain"
 throughout the rest of the document. Alternative would
 be to call it a "localized mobility management domain",
 since the meaning is the same and this terminolgy is
 used elsewhere in the document.

 and later:
 9) Section 1.1, definition for "Intra-Link Mobility", suggest
    changing this term to "Intra-Domain Mobility" (see also
    6) above) defined as:

   "Intra-Domain Mobility
     mobility between wireless access points and/or access routers
     within an IP domain. Typically, movement between access points
     only involves Layer 2 mechanisms, but may also involve IP
     signaling for movement between access points attached to
     different links. No IP configuration change is required upon
     movement within an IP domain since the IP prefixes do not change,
     but some IP signaling may be required for the mobile node to
     confirm whether the change in access point also resulted in a
     change of IP domain."

 10) Section 2.0, in figure 1 and the two paragraphs that
 immediately follow, change "local mobility" to "intra-domain
 mobility". (See also 6) and 9) above).

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/trac/ticket/80>
netlmm <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/>

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

---

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:19:51 -0000

#80: Change "IP Link" to "IP Domain"
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect                       |      Status:  assigned                
  Priority:  major                        |   Milestone:  milestone2              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  1.0                     
Resolution:                               |    Keywords:  PS draft                
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * status:  new => assigned

Comment:

 "Domain" in IETF documents typically refers to a broader area than is
 covered by a set of last hop IPv6 subnet prefixes. For example, a DNS
 domain (since DNS stands for Domain Name System). DNS domains don't cover
 just one link typically. A DHCP domain is defined in RFC 3315 to cover
 multiple links (Section 4.2). What the IP link definintion in PS is
 intended to capture is the last hop link covered in IPv6 by multiple
 subnet prefixes but which only consists of non-routing nodes or mobile
 routers that are mobility-managed as nodes. In IPv4 there would be no
 confusion, because a link is always only covered by a single subnet
 prefix, so the term "subnet" could be used. The definition is not intended
 to cover the entire topological graph managed by the NETLMM mobility
 anchor. That is a "LMM domain" or "NETLMM domain" because in that case,
 the usage of the word "domain" more closely matches the traditional IETF
 usage, multiple links managed somehow by a single protocol or system.

 That said, the current definition is heavily premised on the functional
 equivalent of broadcast, which includes NBMA networks such as ATM. It
 would rule out point to point networks, and that is probably not such a
 good idea because some wireless link protocols, like the cellular
 protocols, do in fact operate much like point to point links.

 Looking through the uses of the term "IP link" in the document, it seems
 as if the usage could be replaced by the standard term of "link" in most
 cases and in others, where the term "IP link" is used as an adjective,
 with the appropriate term, either "IP" or "link".

 Recommendation is to remove the definition of "IP Link" from Section 1.1
 and substitute "link" or "IP" where appropriate throughout the document.

---

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:22:27 -0000

Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  2.0                     

  * version:  1.0 => 2.0

---

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:22:44 -0000

#80: Change "IP Link" to "IP Domain"
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect                       |      Status:  closed                  
  Priority:  major                        |   Milestone:  milestone2              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  2.0                     
Resolution:  fixed                        |    Keywords:  PS draft                
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:17:12 -0700

The proposed resolution looks good; move to close.

Fred
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: netlmm [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 1:20 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] #80: Change "IP Link" to "IP Domain"

#80: Change "IP Link" to "IP Domain"
------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
----
  Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:
[email-masked]
      Type:  defect                       |      Status:  assigned

------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
----
Changes (by [email-masked]):

Comment:

 "Domain" in IETF documents typically refers to a broader area than is
 covered by a set of last hop IPv6 subnet prefixes. For example, a DNS
 domain (since DNS stands for Domain Name System). DNS domains don't
cover
 just one link typically. A DHCP domain is defined in RFC 3315 to cover
 multiple links (Section 4.2). What the IP link definintion in PS is
 intended to capture is the last hop link covered in IPv6 by multiple
 subnet prefixes but which only consists of non-routing nodes or mobile
 routers that are mobility-managed as nodes. In IPv4 there would be no
 confusion, because a link is always only covered by a single subnet
 prefix, so the term "subnet" could be used. The definition is not
intended
 to cover the entire topological graph managed by the NETLMM mobility
 anchor. That is a "LMM domain" or "NETLMM domain" because in that case,
 the usage of the word "domain" more closely matches the traditional
IETF
 usage, multiple links managed somehow by a single protocol or system.

 Looking through the uses of the term "IP link" in the document, it
seems
 as if the usage could be replaced by the standard term of "link" in
most
 cases and in others, where the term "IP link" is used as an adjective,
 with the appropriate term, either "IP" or "link".

 Recommendation is to remove the definition of "IP Link" from Section
1.1
 and substitute "link" or "IP" where appropriate throughout the
document.