Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo

[Keiichi SHIMA <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

I'm sorry for my very delayed response.

On 2006/10/30, at 17:00, K.Kawaguchi wrote:
>
> We have already gotten some opinions. We hope to obtain the conclusion
> at the meeting. We want to examine only the conclusion at the meeting,
> because the meeting have not much time.
> If you have an additional opinion, please send it to ML before the
> meeting.

I'm personally fine with the direction that Kawaguchi-san suggested.

Our team implemented NEMO BS on top of the BSD operating system.   
Right now, we only support the basic case (a HoA from a home network)  
due to our implementation design.  So, making it as a basic logo  
requirement and taking a HoA from MNP as an advanced requirement is  
OK for us :-).

However I have one concern.  The Logo program intends to produce many  
interoperable implementations.  But if we have two levels of the logo  
program (basic and advanced), and everyone can get the basic logo by  
implementing only some parts of the specification, what does motivate  
vendors to implement advanced features?

So, the question is, how is it important for NEMO deployment that  
taking a HoA from a mobile network prefix.  If it is not very  
important, then the feature can be in the advanced logo requirement  
only.  But if it is important, we should not have two logo programs.


Regards,
---
Keiichi SHIMA
IIJ Research Laboratory <[e-mail]>
WIDE Project <[e-mail]>


On 2006/10/30, at 17:00, K.Kawaguchi wrote:

> Hi all and Vijay-san,
>
> Thank you for answer.
> # I'm sorry the delay.
>
> To our regret, The IPv6 Logo Committee NEMO staffs cannot  
> participate in
> the next meeting. Instead of participation, I made text for the next
> IETF meeting.
>
> We have already gotten some opinions. We hope to obtain the conclusion
> at the meeting. We want to examine only the conclusion at the meeting,
> because the meeting have not much time.
> If you have an additional opinion, please send it to ML before the
> meeting.
>
>
> Best regards
> ---
> Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI
>
>
>
> "Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo"
> "Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]>" wrote:
>
>> K.Kawaguchi wrote:
>>
>>>> - HA (Home Agent)
>>>>  - Router functions defined in "Test Specifications for the IPv6  
>>>> Core
>>>>    Protocols" MUST be supported.
>>>>  - Mobile network prefix registration supporting all of explicit  
>>>> mode,
>>>>    implicit mode, home address derived from the Mobile Network  
>>>> Prefix, and
>>>>                    
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>    home address derived from the Home Network Prefix is a Basic  
>>>> Function (A1).
>>>>     
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>>>> ^^^^^^^^
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>> --
>>>> * supplementation) keywords
>>>>   Basic Function (Priority A1)  : It is defined as indispensable  
>>>> function.
>>>>                                   It is always to be tested in  
>>>> Logo.
>>>>   Advance Function (Priority A2): It is defined as enhanced  
>>>> feature.
>>>>                                   It is tested by selection in  
>>>> Logo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RFC3963 has not described which method is a 'MUST'. Therefore,
>>>> we had equally treated both. However, the operation is possible
>>>> by either one.  And a lot of venders might implement only one
>>>> of methods. Now, we think that it is too rich to demand both from
>>>> all products.
>>>> We will put the bias. Two alternatives without mandating either
>>>> make non-interoperable world. So, mandating one is very reasonable.
>>>> We think naturally that home Address be configured from Home Link
>>>> Prefix is basic method same as MIPv6.
>>
>> sounds good to me.
>>
>> Vijay
>>
>>
>> <Logo_NENO_IETF_68th.txt>