Subject: RE: [nemo] Issue 28

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:04:16 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thierry Ernst
> Sent: mardi 9 décembre 2003 10:55
> To: Alexandru Petrescu
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nemo] Issue 28
> 
> 
> 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 ...
> 

I support leaving the definitions in terminology if it goes RFC, as I mentioned implicitly in the thread. Question: should we also move the definitions from the usage draft into the terminology (I assume yes)?

> > 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.
> 
> - generic terms are defined in draft-ietf-seamoby-terminology, included
>   MR.
> 
> - TMLR doesn't exist anymore, it's root-MR.

I support leaving TLMR in the terminology as a deprecated synonym for root-MR; reason is it's been used for awhile.

> 
> > 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).
> 
> 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: this doc will always evolve. So we have to cut RFCs when needed and start a follow on.

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:36:45 +0900

Hi,

> I support leaving the definitions in terminology if it goes RFC, as I mentioned implicitly in the thread. Question: should we also move the definitions from the usage draft into the terminology (I…

Which definitions would be candidates ones ? I will update the
terminology draft before Xmas, and include terms from NEMO Basic
Support, if any.

> I support leaving TLMR in the terminology as a deprecated synonym for root-MR; reason is it's been used for awhile.

I can certainly do this. 

I would also like to propose MNet for "mobile networks" (this term has
been proposed by Nicolas M), since NEMO stands for NEtwork MObility and
MONET may be confused with MANET. Alexandru also proposed some terms,
but I didn't find them reasonably clear. Comments ?

Thierry.

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:36:45 +0900

Hi,

I can certainly do this. 

Thierry.

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:41:32 -0800

> but I didn't find them reasonably clear. Comments ?
I would rather say mobile network than MNet. MoNet makes more sense to 
me. We renamed the working group from MONET to NEMO to avoid the 
similarity to MANET.. but in the context of NEMO documents, and in its 
usage, I don't see how there could be any confusion..?

Maybe someone has a better idea than monet.. but MNet is hard to 
pronounce and doesn't do all that much to shorten or clarify things... 
(just my opinion).

TJ

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:41:32 -0800

TJ

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:24:52 +0100

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> I would also like to propose MNet for "mobile networks"

Against this.  We can always use 'mobile network' at its full length.
Similarly, the spec never reads HA, but Home Agent.  If on the other
hand 'MNet' is intended for ephemeral conversations, then that's fine, I
can key 'MNet', no problem, but no need to set in stone in document
(sorry if I repeat).

I think it's too late to start new NEMO definitions...

> Alexandru also proposed some terms, but I didn't find them reasonably
>  clear. Comments ?

I find it unreasonably unclear which terms are referred(?) :-)

What I would like to have is to have the terms used by the base support
defined in the base support draft itself.  These are not many, and most
of them are already defined by the MIP6 spec.  "Mobile Router" is one of
them.  A Mobile Node refers to an entity that can work as a Mobile Host
or as a Mobile Router.  A Mobile Host does not implement the R-bit in
BU, a Mobile Router does.  Subsequently and paradoxically, a Mobile Node
does implement the R-bit.

This does not mean that the separate terminology draft has no reason to
exist, there are many other NEMO terms that it defines and that are not
used in the base doc.  I also support Pascal's proposal to add the terms
of draft-usages into the terminology document.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:24:52 +0100

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:40:01 +0900

> can key 'MNet', no problem, but no need to set in stone in document

OK, OK, I will never raised this again. But I would like people to stop
saying "[...] a NEMO [...]", etc. NEMO = NEtwork MObility, not noun.

> I think it's too late to start new NEMO definitions...

Why would it be too late ? It's not.
 
> does implement the R-bit.

"Mobile Router" is already defined in draft-ietf-seamoby, so what you
propose is a re-definition. In draft-ietf-seamoby, it's a generic
definition, i.e. with no meaning particular to NEMO Basic Support. May
be in NEMO Extended Support the MR won't need to implement the R-bit, so
your definition must be clearly defined in the context of NEMO Basic
Support. I don't think you need a mention about the R-bit in the
definition.

What you may need is something else than the term "mobile router":
"NEMO-enable router": a MR which implement the NEMO Basic Support's MR
functionality. As opposed to MIPv6-enable node.

> of draft-usages into the terminology document.

OK, but then I request Pascal to send me directly the candidates terms
and their definition.

Thierry.

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:40:01 +0900

Thierry.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:29:03 +0200

> of draft-usages into the terminology document.

Right.

--Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:29:03 +0200

Right.

--Jari

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:01:49 +0100

Thierry Ernst wrote:
>> Against this.  We can always use 'mobile network' at its full 
>> length. Similarly, the spec never reads HA, but Home Agent.  If on 
>> the other hand 'MNet' is intended for ephemeral conversations, then
>>  that's fine, I can key 'MNet', no problem, but no need to set in 
>> stone in document (sorry if I repeat).
> 
> 
> OK, OK, I will never raised this again. But I would like people to 
> stop saying "[...] a NEMO [...]", etc. NEMO = NEtwork MObility, not 
> noun.

Very good, me too.  So where is the NEMO term itself defined?  Just add
something to its definition: "not to be used as a noun".

>  propose is a re-definition.

I don't think Seamoby did any protocol related to Mobile Routers.

I think the intent of that document is to gather together _all_
mobility-related terms, a nice endeavour, but prone to failure of course
if it does not succeed to gather all useful terms (like all the NEMO
terminology document) and defines new and little used terms (like
'mobility factor').

Once it is not accepted to merge the entire NEMO terminology document
within the Seamoby terminology document, there is a problem anyways.

> In draft-ietf-seamoby, it's a generic definition, i.e. with no 
> meaning particular to NEMO Basic Support. May be in NEMO Extended 
> Support the MR won't need to implement the R-bit, so your definition 
> must be clearly defined in the context of NEMO Basic Support. I don't
>  think you need a mention about the R-bit in the definition.

> "NEMO-enable router": a MR which implement the NEMO Basic Support's 
> MR functionality. As opposed to MIPv6-enable node.

Independently of what draft Seamoby says and independently of what the
MANET group thinks about a Mobile Router.  A Mobile Router _is_ a Mobile
IPv6-capable router.

That fact that we use the term "Mobile" is direct relation to Mobile IPv6.

A router that is moving in the physical dimension, but stays attached to
the same access systems, keeps same address, is _not_ a "mobile" router 
at all.  A router looks at the world from an IP perspective, so if it 
sees no change in its IP address then everything appears static, nothing
moves.  One could call it a mobile L2 d

> 
> 
>> This does not mean that the separate terminology draft has no 
>> reason to exist, there are many other NEMO terms that it defines 
>> and that are not used in the base doc.  I also support Pascal's 
>> proposal to add the terms of draft-usages into the terminology 
>> document.
> 
> 
> OK, but then I request Pascal to send me directly the candidates 
> terms and their definition.
> 
> Thierry.
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:01:49 +0100

---

From: Mattias Pettersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:34:31 +0100

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>> hand 'MNet' is intended for ephemeral conversations, then
>> stop saying "[...] a NEMO [...]", etc. NEMO = NEtwork MObility, not noun.
> 
> 

What happened to the alternative meaning of NEMO; NEtwork in MOtion? It 
is a noun, and permits the use of "a NEMO".

Sorry, Thierry... :)

Personally, I prefer to talk about "a moving network".

/Mattias

---

From: Mattias Pettersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:34:31 +0100

Sorry, Thierry... :)

/Mattias

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:47:38 +0100

Mattias Pettersson wrote:
>>>> length. Similarly, the spec never reads HA, but Home Agent.  If
>>>>  on the other hand 'MNet' is intended for ephemeral 
>>>> conversations, then that's fine, I can key 'MNet', no problem, 
>>>> but no need to set in stone in document (sorry if I repeat).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> OK, OK, I will never raised this again. But I would like people 
>>> to stop saying "[...] a NEMO [...]", etc. NEMO = NEtwork 
>>> MObility, not noun.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Very good, me too.  So where is the NEMO term itself defined?  Just
>>  add something to its definition: "not to be used as a noun".
>> 
> 
> What happened to the alternative meaning of NEMO; NEtwork in MOtion? 
> It is a noun, and permits the use of "a NEMO".
> 
> Sorry, Thierry... :)
> 

Yes, me too sometimes, because it does not clash with the established
"mobile network" term typically used in telco text.  That is an
infrastructure that supports mobile devices (e.g. the established term
"GPRS mobile network" is the set of GGSN/SGSN's, node b's, rnc's and
bs's that are, in fact, the fixed infrastructure, and just support
"mobile handsets").

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:47:38 +0100

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:33:31 +0900

> is a noun, and permits the use of "a NEMO".

No, it was discarded.  I was personnaly trying to use NEMO as both an
acronym and a noun, but we reached the conclusion it shouldn't. And, "in
motion" was perceived as missleading, since a network can change its
point of attachment without actually moving ... :-)

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:33:31 +0900

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:50:26 +0900

Hi,

> something to its definition: "not to be used as a noun".

Good point, there is no formal definition for 'NEMO' in the present draft.

> I don't think Seamoby did any protocol related to Mobile Routers.

No, so what ? 

The mobility terminology document is edited there because no other WG
was taking care of it. Once it becomes a RFC, nobody will ever care
about the WG where it was devised.
 
> mobility-related terms, a nice endeavour, but prone to failure of course

Diseagree. A common terminology is missing and I will enforce that the
NEMO WG sticks to the terminology defined in
draft-ietf-seamoby-terminology. The purpose of that document is to list
generic definitions. Mobile Router as presently defined there is
generic. More below after (*)

> within the Seamoby terminology document, there is a problem anyways.

I disagree. draft-ietf-nemo-terminology list attempts to list terms
specific to network mobility, but not specific to NEMO Basic Support.  I
support modularity, as long as we make sure each module interact well
with its neighbours. This is true for protocols, but also for
definition.

> MANET group thinks about a Mobile Router.  A Mobile Router _is_ a Mobile

Disagree. (*) A Mobile Router is a router that changes the point of
attachment of its egress interface. The mobility management of such
change of point of attachment could be done by any protocol, not
necessarily Mobile IPv6 (and, indeed, it's NEMO, not Mobile IPv6, so
kill your own argument here).

The definition of MR as it is stated in draft-..-seamoby can be used by
MANET and NEMO WG the same way. On the other hand, NEMO Basic Support is
defining functionalities to be added to the Mobile Router so that the
mobility of the network is solely managed by the MR.

> That fact that we use the term "Mobile" is direct relation to Mobile IPv6.

No.
 
> moves. 

Totally agree ! That's exactly what defines "mobility". So, the
definition of MR (and other terms) should be independent to the
mechanism used to manage mobility. It should merely specify what are the
characteristics of the node, i.e. changing its address.

Thierry.

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:50:26 +0900

Hi,

No, so what ? 

No.

Thierry.

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:53:47 -0800

> something to its definition: "not to be used as a noun".

Why not? It's short, concise, and people know what it means - a NEtwork 
that's MObile. I don't have any problem using NEMO as a noun the same 
way we used to use MONET. If we introduce a new term it has the 
potential to be more cumbersome.

TJ

> I don't think Seamoby did any protocol related to Mobile Routers.

The NEMO WG is where the locus of work on mobile routers is happening. 
So it makes sense to (re)define the term, at least for our own 
purposes.

NEMOR. :-)

TJ

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:53:47 -0800

TJ

NEMOR. :-)

TJ

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:24:45 +0100

Thierry Ernst wrote:
>>> 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 ...
>>> 
>> 
>> I support leaving the definitions in terminology if it goes RFC, as
>>  I mentioned implicitly in the thread. Question: should we also 
>> move the definitions from the usage draft into the terminology (I 
>> assume yes)?
> 
> Which definitions would be candidates ones ?

Let's talk about "Mobile Security Gateways" what do you think?

 From an IPsec perspective, I have difficulty defining MR as an "IPsec
Host" or as a "Security Gateway".

A Mobile Security Gateway would act as an IPsec Host when sending
BU's but as a Security Gateway (ESP in tunnel mode) when forwarding
traffic from an LFN to the HA (through the tunnel).  For that matter HA
would simply be a Security Gateway, that's easy.

A Mobile Security Gateway should not be interpreted as a fixed Security
Gateway that supports mobile hosts roaming far away (e.g. a VPN Gateway
to which roaming users connect); it should be interpreted as Security
Gateway that actually moves.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:24:45 +0100

Alex