Re: [Roll] Review and concerns

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

David E. Culler a écrit :

>  Here's the NEMO list.  Which are you arguing should be included and why?

RFC3963 NEMOv6 base spec should be included because:

-it and not RFC5177 NEMOv4 because ROLL does IPv6 only
-if there is a chance that a LLN network may contain groups of entities
  moving together (a moving network) and at the same time LLN is
  connected to the Internet then Mobile IPv6 with its NEMOv6 extensions
  may look attractive.
-if the latter condition is not satisfied it still makes sense to talk
  about moving network concepts, in the sense that one entity may be in
  charge of all entities in the moving network, without necessarily using
  Mobile IPv6 protocol nor NEMOv6.

Alex

> draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support/> 	-03 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support> 	
> 	2004-06-07   	RFC 3963 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3963> 	
> draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models/> 
> -06 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models> 	
> 	2006-02-21   	RFC 4887 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4887> 	
> draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues/> 	-07 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues> 	
> 	2007-02-07   	RFC 4980 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4980> 	
> draft-ietf-nemo-requirements 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-requirements/> 	-06 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-requirements> 	
> 	2006-11-09   	RFC 4886 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4886> 	
> draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement/> 
> -03 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement> 	
> 	2006-09-18   	RFC 4888 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4888> 	
> draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis/> 	-03 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis> 	
> 	2006-09-18   	RFC 4889 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4889> 	
> draft-ietf-nemo-terminology 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/draft-ietf-nemo-terminology/> 	-06 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nemo-terminology> 	
> 	2006-11-09   	RFC 4885 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4885> 	
> 
> 
> There are many topics that as a working group we'd like to move on to 
> once this process completes.  Much important work has been done outside 
> IETF WGs.  Some of it in the IRTF.  Others in other places.  All the 
> more reason to complete this well formed, bounded effort.   Again, I do 
> not hear any suggestion that any protocol within the domain of analysis 
> meets the criteria.  I do hear that there are protocols or modifications 
> to protocols that do or could.  We need to complete the process on this 
> draft so that we can move on to consider such enhancements, candidates, 
> or new designs. 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Emmanuel Baccelli <emmanuel.baccelli at 
> gmail.com <mailto:emmanuel.baccelli%20at%20gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:28 PM, David E. Culler <culler at
>     eecs.berkeley.edu <mailto:culler%20at%20eecs.berkeley.edu>> wrote:
> 
> 
>         Some concerns recognize that there are protocols outside the
>         defined universe that should be considered and that appear to be
>         far better suited to meeting the criteria than the set of IETF
>         protocols that were considered - since those protocols were
>         developed without these criteria.  Again, that suggests that the
>         criteria are a reasonable guide, that they do not appear to be
>         unobtainable, and that the analysis has provided a suitable guide.
> 
>         None of the comments seem to be claiming that there is a
>         solution within the universe that we were chartered to consider
>         that meets the criteria.
> 
> 
>  
> Even admitting that the universe you defined is wide enough (a point 
> which is actually agued since months), we could conclude to this only if 
> this universe (defined in the charter) is covered entirely. Again, it is 
> not the case: I have seen nothing said about NEMO or DTN, so reports of 
> investigations in these fields need to be included in the draft anyways.
> 
> Second, if we are not going into a long research phase, I am still 
> wondering what existing protocols/algorithms, IP compatible or not, are 
> being "hinted at" here, which could meet the "dream" criterii that are 
> evoked in the draft. Chris Dearlove and other people have asked this 
> question many times, and it is yet to be answered.
> 
> Emmanuel
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll