Subject: [netlmm] NOTICE: WG Last Call on PS draft (version number 02)

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:42:26 -0700

Today starts a one week WG Last Call on the PS draft. Until the Secretariat 
posts the drafts to the Internet Drafts directory, you can access it here:

http://www.geocities.com/kempf42/draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-02.txt

If you have problems with accessing Geocities, send me email and I will send 
you the draft.

PLEASE NOTE that the draft version this time is 02. We had problems last 
time with delays in getting the Secretariat to promptly post the drafts and 
update the WG web page, and some people reviewed the wrong version. If you 
download the draft via the link on the WG Web page, please be sure to check 
the version number first to see whether the link has been updated.

The WG Last Call expires next week on Tues. June 13.

            jak 

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

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 13:12:21 -0700

James et. al.,

Below are my comments on 'draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-02.txt':

Fred
[email-masked]

1) It seems odd to have a "Contributers" section toward the
beginning of the document. You already list the same names
under "Author Information", so why list them here also?
Suggest dropping this section.

2) Section 1.0, need to mention DHCP and others as localized
mobility management alternatives. Suggest adding a new third
sentence such as: "Additionally, other mechanisms such as the
standard protocols of DHCP involve host-based solutions that
are independent of Mobile IP."

3) Section 1.0, insert paragraph break before: "Firstly ...".

4) Section 1.0, sentence beginning: "While it is possible...",
change to read: "While it is possible that existing localized
mobility management protocols could be used with HIP and Mobike,
some would require additional effort to implement and deploy in
a non-Mobile IPv6 mobile environment."

5) Section 1.0, insert paragraph break before: "Secondly...".

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.

7) Section 1.1, definition for "Global Mobility Management
   Protocol", suggest changing: "invalidates a global unicast
   address on the local IP link currently in active use by
   the mobile node." to: "invalidates a global unicast
   address of the mobile node.". Also, the sentence beginning
   "(Note: although Mobike..." seems extraneous and could be
   dropped.

8) Section 1.1, definition for "Global Mobility Anchor Point"
   seems overly-long. Suggest dropping the section beginning
   with: "For Mobile IP...".

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).

11) Section 4.0, first paragraph. Change: "1) Interoperable IP
level protocols" to: "1) Mobile-IP based protocols".

12) Section 4.0, first paragraph, add the following as item 3):

 "3) Standard protocols such as DHCP that require support in
    the mobile node's IP stack and/or integration with IP
    forwarding mechanisms in the access network."

13) Section 4.0, following the paragraph beginning: "Market
acceptance of WLAN switches", add the following new paragraph:

  "Market acceptance of DHCP has been very large, so Solution 3
  is widely deployed and continuing to grow. Solution 3 requires
  DHCP client support in the host stack. (Alternatively, the DHCP
  client function could be implemented as a proxy in the access
  network.)"

14) Section 4.0, change: "The advantages that this solution has
over the Solutions 1 and 2 above" to: The advantages that this
solution has over Solutions 1-3 above".

15) Section 4.0, final paragraph, add the following:

  "3) Compared with Solution 3, an IP level network-based
      solution offloads the mobile node from having to
      explicitly participate in mobility management. The
      tradeoffs between network-based mobility management
      and Solution 3 need to be carefully analyzed for
      applicability in various use-case scenarios."

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 9:42 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] NOTICE: WG Last Call on PS draft (version number 02)

Today starts a one week WG Last Call on the PS draft. Until the
Secretariat 
posts the drafts to the Internet Drafts directory, you can access it
here:

If you have problems with accessing Geocities, send me email and I will
send 
you the draft.

time with delays in getting the Secretariat to promptly post the drafts
and 
update the WG web page, and some people reviewed the wrong version. If
you 
download the draft via the link on the WG Web page, please be sure to
check 
the version number first to see whether the link has been updated.

            jak