Subject: [nemo] Issue 28

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:47:02 -0800

I need some more comments/opinions on Issue 28 before I
can call concensus and close the issue. the list of issues
are at http://people.nokia.net/vijayd/nemo/issues.html

what does everybody think?

Vijay

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:26:08 +0100

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> I need some more comments/opinions on Issue 28 before I can call 
> concensus and close the issue. the list of issues are at 
> http://people.nokia.net/vijayd/nemo/issues.html
> 

I think it makes sense to have all terms of NEMO basic support draft
defined in the Terminology section of same draft.

And, because I wish that Terminology section not to be too long, and
because many terms have been used in this mailing list to discuss
wide-reaching aspects of network mobility, I also think that the
separate terminology draft is useful.

For example, MR would be good to be defined in the Terminology section
but TLMR would be defined in the Terminology document, because the basic
support draft does not talk about TLMR's at all.

Also, MNN would be defined in the Terminology draft and not in the
Terminology section.  LFN and LFR would be defined in the Terminology
section, since they're used directly by the basic support draft.  VMN
and VMR would be defined in the Terminology draft, because they are not
used at all in the basic support draft.

And, last but not least, there is that Seamoby Informational terminology
draft that contains the definition of MR too.

Finally, the clarification of MH, MR and MN should be re-stated
somewhere, because currently there is much confusion about this.  Most
text I've read and speech I've heard refers to MN as being a Mobile
Host; while in reality MN could be either a MH or a MR (by the
definition in the Mobile IPv6 spec).

That's what I think about issue 28 on terminology, thanks for asking,

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:26:08 +0100

Alex

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:47:55 -0800

> defined in the Terminology section of same draft.

okay.

> separate terminology draft is useful.

right. the intention is that the terminology section in the
Basic support draft will contain a very small subset of terms
contained in the terminology draft.

> definition in the Mobile IPv6 spec).

this should be clarified in the Terminology draft.

Vijay

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:47:55 -0800

okay.

Vijay

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:54:50 +0900

Hi,

Let me remind you that we have a separate terminology because the WG
aggreed it; and that the terminology doc contains more terms that are
needed in NEMO Basic Support. So, if you want to move some definitions
in the NEMO Basic Support doc, we would still need a doc for the other
terms ...

> support draft does not talk about TLMR's at all.

- generic terms are defined in draft-ietf-seamoby-terminology, included
  MR. 

- TMLR doesn't exist anymore, it's root-MR.

> definition in the Mobile IPv6 spec).

Anyone is free to propose a rephrasing (that is shared by ML members).
To me, a MN is either a host or a router, I think the definitions are
clear about this.

I think the NEMO Basic Support doc should only define specific terms, if
needed. For instance, LFN is better defined in an other document, as it
will be used in discussions not only turning around Basic Support. On
the other hand, if we want to define a term R-BU (Router Binding Update,
to distinguish with the MIPv6 BU), the NEMO Basic Support doc is a
better place.

So, what terms would you like to see in the NEMO Basic Support doc ?

About the status of the terminology doc, I have not issued the WG last
call because I think the terminology about multihoming is not clear
enough and may be enhanced based on the discussion about the coming
multihoming WG document.

Thierry.

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:54:50 +0900

Hi,

Thierry.