Re: [nemo] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-nemo-terminology

[Romain KUNTZ <[e-mail]>]

Chan-Wah Ng wrote:
>>>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.

Thinking about that, a split-NEMO is basically a problem because MNNs 
may also suffer from that, even if 2 different MNPs are advertised by 
the 2 different MR that have splitted. So defining split-NEMO to any 
kind of split might be useful for people who want to use a generic term 
in their documents.

> 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.

Not necessarily. IMHO if we define a term, then it's better than 
everyone (people who wants to describe a problem, or people who just 
want to refer to a separation) use the same term.

Regards,

Romain