Re: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks

Hi Sheng,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cin-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cin-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Sheng Jiang
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:34 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L; cin@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks
> 
> >> It means these designs
> >> are deployable in theory, but not really proven in working system.
> >
> >Not necessarily. There are certainly examples of widely-deployed
> >and proven working systems based on independent-submission RFCs
> >(e.g., RFC5214).
> 
> OK, change my expression: not every independent-submission RFCs has been
> proven in working system by the time of publish.

I think the "multiple independent interoperable implementations"
requirement doesn't come into play until Draft Standard. So, I
believe it is OK for a document to go forward even as Proposed
Standard without necessarily needing a backing implementation.

Thanks - Fred

> >> So, the
> >> primary question would be: are there existing implementations, have
> they
> >> been tested for interoperability?
> >
> >There is an implementation of the first edition of SEAL here:
> >
> >http://www.isatap.com/seal/
> 
> Glad to know this.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Sheng
> 
> >Thanks - Fred
> >fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Sheng
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com]
> >> >Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 12:13 AM
> >> >To: Sheng Jiang; cin@ietf.org
> >> >Cc: terry.davis@ijetonboard.com
> >> >Subject: RE: why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks
> >> >
> >> >Hi Sheng,
> >> >
> >> >IRON was also designed specifically for aviation networks, and
> >> >I believe it is better suited to that purpose (and others) than
> >> >NEMO. A first version of the IRON architecture was published as
> >> >RFC6179, and is based on its constituent mechanisms VET (RFC5558)
> >> >and SEAL (RFC5320). These three documents are now being published
> >> >in a second edition, found here:
> >> >
> >> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-ironbis/
> >> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-vet/
> >> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-seal/
> >> >
> >> >Let me know if you have any questions or comments on these.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks - Fred
> >> >fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: cin-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cin-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
> >> >> Sheng Jiang
> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 6:55 PM
> >> >> To: cin@ietf.org
> >> >> Cc: terry.davis@ijetonboard.com
> >> >> Subject: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi, all,
> >> >>
> >> >> Read through the mail archive, Aviation Networks looks like an
> >> interesting
> >> >> case that needs to work on. It needs some protocol work by the
> current
> >> >> description.
> >> >>
> >> >> However, I don't find the discussion so far mentioned MEMO at all.
> For
> >> my
> >> >> memory, MEMO (RFC 3963, also a set of relevant  RFCs later,
> referring
> >> as
> >> >> Network Mobility) was designed for these scenarios, aircrafts,
> trains,
> >> >> etc. Mobile routers with Nemo do NOT generate any extra global
> routing
> >> >> items. IETF had put considerable efforts on mobility support,
> >> particularly
> >> >> in IPv6. It would be good to start investigation from these existing
> >> works
> >> >> though they were not deployed yet. Maybe further investigation found
> >> >Nemo
> >> >> was not enough for certain technical requirements, then some
> >> >improvement
> >> >> may be needed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best regardsm
> >> >>
> >> >> Sheng
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> cin mailing list
> >> >> cin@ietf.org
> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cin mailing list
> >> cin@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin
> _______________________________________________
> cin mailing list
> cin@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin