Subject: RE: [netlmm] PMIP-MIP interactions

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:17:00 -0500

> 
> Hopefully this answers Ahmad's earlier email as well. 
> 
> Hesham
> 

Hi Hesham,

In your draft, as part of the draft objective/intent, you said:

   This document will not focus only on scenarios where the two
protocols 
   are used by the same mobile node to manage local and global mobility,
but:

   it will also investigate ++also++ more
   complex scenarios where the protocols are used beyond their original
   scope or where some nodes implement Mobile IPv6 and others do not
   implement it.

It is a very interesting objective. However, why we need to spend
resources and time to figure out how people are going to use the
protocol beyond its original scope? Should not that be out of scope? 
The other thing, how, you and Gerardo will be able to list all of these
possible scenarios?

Regards,
Ahmad

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

---

From: "Hesham Soliman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:38:43 +1000

Hi Ahmad, 

	   This document will not focus only on scenarios where the two
protocols 
	   are used by the same mobile node to manage local and global
mobility, but: 

	   it will also investigate ++also++ more 
	   complex scenarios where the protocols are used beyond their
original 
	   scope or where some nodes implement Mobile IPv6 and others do not

	   implement it. 

	It is a very interesting objective. However, why we need to spend
resources and time to 	figure out how people are going to use the protocol
beyond its original scope? Should 	not that be out of scope? 

=> I hope that some of the scenarios in the draft are agreed to be either
out of scope or "do NOT do this"! type scenarios. The reason it's important
is that some people in other SDOs have already suggested some of those
scenarios, so we wrote this draft to analyse the consequences of those
deployments. That's the best thing we can do in this situation. So you can
see it as a BCP type document. 

	The other thing, how, you and Gerardo will be able to list all of
these possible   	scenarios? 

=> :) Well "All possible scenarios" is not an absolute number, so we listed
the ones we know of and were raised in different fora. If there are more
scenarios being discussed lets address them. But of course we can list the
ones we don't know. 

Hesham

	Regards, 
	Ahmad

---

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:43:47 -0500

Hi Hesham,

Thanks for the clarification.

The point I am trying to make is:

IMHO, It does not make sense to apply the requirements of what in-scope
to something out-of-scope and at the same time make any scientifically
meaningful conclusion. Especially, if we already know that our job is to
propose a protocol that is generic enough in order to be used under
different setups, environment, technologies, etc. It is always expected
that in order to use such a generic protocol, there will be
customization A at Technology B while environment D would favor
customization C.

For example, in the case of CMIP6, I am not aware of any of the
technologies that I have come across, that has deployed a solution based
on RFC3775 alone.  

Finally, I do not think we would be investing our time wisely if we sit
here and try to anticipate how every deployment in the world would use
this generic protocol and then study it in details.

I hope you agree.
Thanks again.

Regards,
Ahmad

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:39 AM
> To: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10); 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [netlmm] PMIP-MIP interactions
> 
> Hi Ahmad, 
> 
> 	   This document will not focus only on scenarios where 
> the two protocols 
> 	   are used by the same mobile node to manage local and 
> global mobility, but: 
> 
> => I hope that some of the scenarios in the draft are agreed 
> to be either out of scope or "do NOT do this"! type 
> scenarios. The reason it's important is that some people in 
> other SDOs have already suggested some of those scenarios, so 
> we wrote this draft to analyse the consequences of those 
> deployments. That's the best thing we can do in this 
> situation. So you can see it as a BCP type document. 
> 
> => :) Well "All possible scenarios" is not an absolute 
> number, so we listed the ones we know of and were raised in 
> different fora. If there are more scenarios being discussed 
> lets address them. But of course we can list the ones we don't know. 
> 
> Hesham
> 
> 
> 	Regards, 
> 	Ahmad 
> 
> 
> 
>