Subject: [Mobike] Comment on section 5.7 in draft-ietf-mobike-design-01.txt (should we delete it?)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:59:00 -0600

Original text:

5.7  Employing MOBIKE results in other protocols

If MOBIKE has learned about new locations or verified the validity of
   an address through a return routability test, can this information be
   useful for other protocols?

(*** text omitted ***)

However, it is conceivable that future uses or extensions of the
   MOBIKE protocol make such information distribution useful.  For
   instance, if transport mode MOBIKE and SCTP were made to work
   together, it would likely be useful for SCTP to learn about the new
   addresses at the same time as MOBIKE learns them.  Similarly, various
   IP layer mechanisms might make use of the fact that a return
   routability test of a specific type has already been performed.

My comment:

I'm concerned about this subsection 5.7 and I think it should be deleted
entirely.  Speculation on relationships with other protocols when MOBIKE
has not been baked is not useful at this time.  I can't evaluate this
section because there is not enough real technical information.  The
next part is even more speculation about multihoming and possible multi6
outcomes which are neither determined nor baked.

Your last sentence says it best:

Nevertheless, all of this is outside the scope of current MOBIKE base
   protocol design and may be addressed in future work.

My conclusion:

So let's not say it at all.  

-- Maureen

_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike