Re: [nemo] Deployment Requirements

[Thierry Ernst <[e-mail]>]

> > Well, do you intend to mean that we should write a deployment
> > requirements draft for the aviation industry specifically, in which 
> > case
> > we would do the same for the vehicular industry, and for each other
> > existing use cases ?
> >
> 
> well, i am not sure about the vehicular technology because i don't
> know if they have specific requirements.

They do, though they don't speak up yet, because (unfortunately) IETF is
not an organization where they used to be involved. But they (or the
vendors related to the vehicular industry and the standardization bodies
such as ISO and ETSI) will show up when they understand it is important
for them to be involved in the debate.

Would be interesting to get some input from the Japanese folks who I
know are monitoring this ML. I'm not speaking only about the people at
Keio University who are academic though who are involved with these
people, but the people representing the companies who are in this
business. 

Come on folks, this is the right timing to discuss the deployment
requirements for the vehicular industry !

> but following the emails that have been exchanged lately in this ml,
> it is my opinion that the aviation case have quite special
> requirements and that they need customized solutions for thier
> problems that have their own set of deployment issues.

I second this. But the vehicular industry is IMHO more important as it
would involved tens of vendors, with possibly divergent deployment
requirements. 

> I mean consider that they are moving globally quite rapidly, they have
> 
> wordlwide infrastruture, they need high reliability,  and so on, which
> 
> makes their case somehow different from the case of nemos deployed in 
> buses cars and so on (or at least it seems so to me)

Well, cases and thus requirements are different. RFC 3963 may not always
apply, but even though, the security, authentication and multihoming
considerations are different.

> that is why i think that the general requirements and in particular
> the deployment requirements for a solution to this particular problem
> need to be fleshed out

Yes, but what is the best procedure ? Independent draft, one for each
use case, or shall we came up straight with common requirements, in
which case I would say draft-ietf-nemo-requirements is the best place to
gather these deployment scenarios ?
 
> > If yes, then I guess it would rather be individual submissions
> 
> yes i think Terry initial list could be a starting point for this
> 
> > that
> > could be used as input for determining a common list of deployment
> > requirements.
> >
> 
> well depending on whether this requirements fit into the general 
> requirements, this may be ok.... but i think that they are likely to
> be quite differetn from the general case

This may not be an issue. The draft could be explicit that these are
requirements for that specific use cases where we get some input.

Thierry.

> >
> >>> [I changed the subject line]
> >>>
> >>> Speaking about "deployment requirements", I would propose to add a
> >>> section in draft-ietf-nemo-requirements (actually, I intended to 
> >>> extend
> >>> that draft since the beginning ;-) rather of editing a separate
> >>> document.
> >>>
> >>> Would that make sense to everyone ?
> >>>
> >>
> >> i think that there are some general deployment requirements that
> >could> fit in there
> >>
> >> however, perhaps the case of aviation may have quite specific
> >> requirements of their own that may not apply in the general
> >case.... i> mean not all of us have worldwide sites and a nemo moving
> >around> several of them in a single day :-)
> >>
> >> Regards, marcelo
> >>
> >>
> >>> Thierry.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:19:30 +0300
> >>> marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> El 15/05/2006, a las 20:47, T.J.Kniveton escribió:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 28, 2006, at 9:45 PM, Davis, Terry L wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> T.J.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You'll probably wish that you hadn't asked for this...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> These would be our ideal mobility solution.  I realize that 
> >>>>>> meeting
> >>>>>> all
> >>>>>> of these is probably an extreme stretch.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Take care
> >>>>>> Terry
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Terry,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I second the request to put your list of items into a draft. It 
> >>>>> will
> >>>>> be helpful to have a concrete list of deployment requirements to
> >>>>> refer
> >>>>> to. While the WG can't necessarily solve all of the problems for
> >
> >>>>> one
> >>>>> specific deployment, an informational document listing them can
> >be>>>> useful for guidance when making engineering design decisions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would you be willing to do that? Perhaps others in the WG can
> >help>>>> with maintaining the document / editing if needed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> i am willing to help Terry on this in case it is needed...
> >>>>
> >>>> regards, marcelo
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> TJ
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -- 
> >>> Thierry ERNST, PhD
> >>> INRIA Rocquencourt Projet IMARA
> >>> [phone]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > Thierry ERNST, PhD
> > INRIA Rocquencourt Projet IMARA
> > [phone]
> >
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Thierry ERNST, PhD
INRIA Rocquencourt Projet IMARA
[phone]