Subject: [netlmm] #135: Add more gap analyses

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:19:57 -0000

#135: Add more gap analyses
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]      |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  enhancement                   |      Status:  new                     
 Priority:  major                         |   Milestone:  milestone4              
Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req  |     Version:  2.0                     
 Keywords:  REQ draft                     |  
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Eric Rescorla says:

 >
 > S 8.x
 > I don't understand the existing protocols enough to review this
 > gap analysis in any useful way. However, it seems like you ought
 > to have a section on your own reference architecture. Also, what
 > about a section on the existing WLAN and Cell approaches?
 >

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/trac/ticket/135>
netlmm <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/>
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:22:51 -0000

#135: Add more gap analyses
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]      |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  enhancement                   |      Status:  closed                  
  Priority:  major                         |   Milestone:  milestone4              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req  |     Version:  2.0                     
Resolution:  fixed                         |    Keywords:  REQ draft               
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

Comment:

 The authors discussed possibly doing something on GPRS but decided against
 it. We decided to focus specifically on protocols that either are RFC'ed
 or had been submitted to IETF but rejected (like the micromobility
 protocols). Since the gap analysis now is not as important it does not
 seem worthwhile to add any more material here, but the text in the
 introductary section to the Appendix has been modified to emphasize the
 focus on IETF protocols. The text is below.

 ------------------------
 This section discusses a gap analysis between proposals for solving
 localized mobility management and the goals in Section. 3.0. There are
 many other research mobility management protocols or technology specific
 protocols some of which are deployed that could have been reviewed, but
 the proposals here are either described in existing RFCs or have in the
 past been proposed in IETF for standardization (example: micromobility
 protocols).