Subject: [nemo] comments on draft-ietf-nemo-terminology

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:16:15 -0700

hi Thierry,

I have some comments on version 01 of the terminology draft. I am not
sure if you have submitted version 02 of the draft.

> Abstract
> 
>    This document defines a terminology for discussing network mobility
>    problems and solution requirements. 

maybe the above sentence is enough for the abstract. what follows is
repeated (similar text) in the Introduction.

> Network mobility arises when a
>    router connecting an entire network to the Internet dynamically
>    changes its point of attachment to the Internet therefrom causing the
>    reachability of the entire network to be changed in the topology.
>    Such kind of network is referred to as a mobile network. Without
>    appropriate mechanisms, sessions established between nodes in the
>    mobile network and the global Internet cannot be maintained while the
>    mobile router changes its point of attachment.
> 

>    Within the term Mobile Network Node (MNN), we can distinguish between
>    LFN, VMN and LMN. 

the terms LFN, VMN and LMN are introduced here without expanding them.

> 3.3 MONET [DEPRECIATED]

s/DEPRECIATED/DEPRECATED/

> 
> 3.5 Egress Interface (E-face)
> 
>    As defined in [2])
> 
> 3.6 Ingress Interface (I-face)
> 
>    As defined in [2])

lets not re-define these two terms. Ingress and Egress are widely used
terms and everybody understands them.

> 3.7 NEMO-prefix (MNP)
> 
>    An acronym for Mobile Network Prefix (as defined in [2])

why introduce this term if we are not re-defining it? MNP has been
widely used on the mailing list and in the NEMO Basic Support spec. I
prefer MNP (Mobile Network Prefix) over NEMO-prefix.

> 
> 3.8 NEMO-link
> 
>    A link (subnet) located within the mobile network.

including nested mobile networks?

> 
> 3.10 Node behind the MR
> 
>    Any MNN located in a mobile network, beside the MRs connecting the
>    mobile network to the Internet.

this is not a term. I think this should be removed.

> 3.14 NEMO-enabled (NEMO-node)
> 
>    A node that has been extended with network mobility support
>    capabilities and that may take special actions based on that (details
>    of the capabilities are not known yet, but it may be implementing
>    some sort of Route Optimization).

I had a hard time understanding this section. does the node do some
kind of Route Optimization inside the Mobile Network (without
involving a Mobile IPv6 Home Agent)? if there was some discussion
regarding this on the mailing list, please let me know.

> 7.5 Mobile Aggregated Prefix
> 
>    An aggregation of Mobile Network Prefixes.
> 
> 7.6 Aggregated Home Network
> 
>    The Home Network associated with a Mobile Aggregated Prefix. This
>    Aggregation is advertised as a subnet on the Home Link, and thus used
>    as Home Network for Nemo purposes.
> 
> 7.7 Extended Home Network
> 
>    The network associated with the aggregation of one or more Home
>    Network(s) and Mobile Network(s). As opposed to the Mobile IPv6 Home
>    Network that is a subnet, the extended Home Network is an aggregation
>    and is further subnetted.
> 
> 7.8 Virtual Home Network
> 
>    The Home Network associated with a Virtual Network. The Extended Home
>    Network and the Aggregated Home Network can be configured as Virtual
>    Home Network.

the above four terms to appear only in
draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models. it is hard to explain these terms
without figures. the above four terms, as they are currently described
in the terminology draft will only mystify the readers.

>    - Added TMLR as depreciated term (everyone should use root-MR
>    instead)

replace with
      - Deprecated TLMR.

>    - Added NEMO-prefix

this I disagree with. I think MNP should be used.

Vijay

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:35:10 +0200

> this I disagree with. I think MNP should be used.

I agree that MNP should be used instead of NEMO-prefix.  At least the
basic spec uses it, so.

And then people are free to just use "prefix".

Talking terminology...  I'm remembering when monet was proposed and
there was suggestion against this term (because collision with other
terms) and then nemo was proposed instead.  I was opposing change at
that time because I thought monet was already established, and I liked
its artistic touch.  Someone even said something like "fine arts vs.
crazy captain" :-)  I don't know now whether the change was good or bad,
but maybe yes.

And thinking right now that "mobile network" really has collisions with
"telecom mobile networks" (the ones that _support_ mobile devices, but
don't actually move themselves - ok they do, with respect to the 
Rotation Axis, which moves too with respect to self). And thinking it
would be better to use "moving network" instead of "mobile network"; but
who knows which term will stick.

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:20:46 +0900

Hi Vijay,

> sure if you have submitted version 02 of the draft.

I've never submitted version 02, but I'm working on it, thanks to your
comments (basically, I needed more comments in oder to update this draft
and address all the open issues.

> terms and everybody understands them.

I don't understand your point. It's not re-defined, it's just listed,
saying report to [2] for the proper definition. 

> prefer MNP (Mobile Network Prefix) over NEMO-prefix.

This is an abbreviation for Mobile Network Prefix, so the defintion is
the one in "Mobile Network Prefix". May be I can state this in a
different way.

regarding NEMO-Prefix vs MNP, this is a long history of mails (I cannot
point the month, nor the subject line without doing a search - I don't
have time for it know, so if someone knows, please post this to us).
Alexandru has constantly opposed NEMO-Prefix, as TJ, if I recall, but
some have supported NEMO-Prefix if I'm not mistaken. In any case, I
proposed this term at the IETF meeting and there was no opposition.

So, what's the purpose of the meetings if people don't oppose to the
propositions made there ?

> including nested mobile networks?

Don't know. We may need to ellaborate on the ML.
 
> this is not a term. I think this should be removed.

It's true it's not a term, but many people use this expression in
papers, etc, so it makes sense to tell what that means. May be another
section would be more appropriate.
 
> regarding this on the mailing list, please let me know.

MR is a NEMO-enabled node. Thanks to NEMO Basic Support, MNNs are not
needed to be NEMO-enabled. With RO, we don't know yet. So, to answer
your question, the assumed extensions are not necessarily for RO.

I think the definition is pretty clear, but I would consider
suggestions, otherwise.

> in the terminology draft will only mystify the readers.

OK, I would like the authors of draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-model to
speak one voice. I've put this text here after it was suggested to do
it. I still believe it's the right place. I'm not sure that
draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-model will be the only document to use
these terms in the future. Who knows, it could be used in RO Analysis,
Multihoming analysis, Nested Analysis. 

I personnaly vote to include all WG terms that we are aware if in
draft-ietf-nemo-terminology.

> this I disagree with. I think MNP should be used.

Let's see what other people think.  To me, the debate was closed since
NEMO-Prefix was proposed (and accepted [no opposition is supposed to be
acceptation or not ?]) at the IETF.

Thierry.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:15:24 -0700

> saying report to [2] for the proper definition. 

the objection was to E-face and I-face. RFC 3753 does not contain
E-face and I-face.

> propositions made there ?

not everyone attends all meetings (I didnt attend the meeting in
Seoul). I think decisions taken during a WG meeting do not hold
until they are confirmed on the mailing list.

> Multihoming analysis, Nested Analysis. 

it should atleast say, the details are in the home-network-models
draft. the way the terms appear here is too cryptic for the readers.
you definitely need figures to explain these terms.

> draft-ietf-nemo-terminology.

I am not so sure about that. a terminology draft is good as an
handy reference. IMHO, each draft that describes a protocol
(especially Proposed Standards) should be self-contained.

Vijay