Subject: Re: [nemo] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-nemo-terminology
From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
To: IETF NEMO WG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:46:01 +0800
List-Id: NEMO Working Group <nemo.ietf.org>

Hello, Romain,

On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 16:50 +0900, Romain KUNTZ wrote:
> Hello Chan-Wah,
> 
> Sorry for the delay !
> 

I have no problem at all with that ... but I don't know about Thierry.
He may be anxious to get this resolved. :)

> Chan-Wah Ng wrote:
> >>IMHO it is good to be accurate, in order to identify when the problem 
> >>occurs. So what about this one:
> >>
> >>   Split-NEMO refers to the case where a mobile network that has
> >>   multiple mobile routers handling the same MNP (or MNPs) becomes
> >>   two or more independent mobile networks, where the same MNP(s)
> >>   are no longer advertised in the same mobile network.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Hmm, I am doubtful about the last sentence, especially the last few
> > words "same mobile networks".  The problem with split-NEMO is that the
> > MRs cannot announce the same MNP to different NEMO.
> > 
> > 
> > May I offer an entirely different definition:
> > 
> >    Split-NEMO refers to the case where a mobile network becomes
> >    two or more independent mobile networks due to the separation
> >    of Mobile Routers which are handling the same MNP (or MNPs)
> >    in the original mobile network before separation.
> 
> Actually, I wonder if Split-NEMO should only refer to the case where
> split is a problem, or to any kind of split. draft-ietf-nemo-terminology
> is a terminology document and thus should be silent on the problems or
> specific scenario. Other documents such as
> draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-02 can then refer to Split-NEMO and
> describe the problems that may occur when a split occurs (and actually
> it already has a section about that).
> 
> What is your opinion?
> 
Ah, which was why I first asked what is the purpose of having the
split-NEMO terminology.  IMHO, its only useful for the case where there
is problem.  Where else would such a terminology be useful?  I mean when
two mobile routers previously on the same link go separate way, you
simply say "they go separate way" or "they got separated" or "they
separated".  There is no need to create a special term for that.

To me split-NEMO means that a logically single entity got separated.  It
warrants some configurations changes.  Like MNP needs to be broken into
two parts etc, etc, which is what my latest proposal is trying to
convey.  

I agree with you that the terminology (and definition) itself should not
contains hints of a problem.  That is the job of a problem statement.
But the terminology is created so that we can refer to the scenario
where the problem occurs.

"Split-NEMO" as a term is pretty much like "pinball route" to me in
nature.  It is created to help describe a problem.

/rgds
/cwng