Subject: [nemo]RO taxonomy

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:21:37 +0100

I agree with Chan Wah. 

Also, Alex mentioned at the WG that the draft might be written a partial
way, implicitly promoting some solutions. And that for that reason, it
could not be used as a base for the WG draft, as proposed by the chairs.
But then, Alex did not come up with any specific on this in his
following (and appreciated) review. 

So I have questions for the WG:

Q1 Should we split? 
Q2 Is the doc fair enough WRT possible approaches?
Q3 And BTW did we miss any?

Unless they are so pervasive that it can not be fixed, I suggest we fix
whichever partiality issues is found (if any), incorporate the relevant
text from the other drafts (mostly the MANET aspect that was really
understated) and propose the doc again for WG consideration, either on
one or 2 pieces.

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chan-Wah NG [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: jeudi 11 novembre 2004 23:52
> To: Alexandru Petrescu
> Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); IETF NEMO WG; Vijay Devarapalli; Ville
Nuorvala; Erik Nordmark
> Subject: Re: (was Re: Multiple address in RH type 2, now back to:)
[nemo]RO taxonomy
> 
> Hello Alex,
> 
> Thank you for reading the draft immediately after the WG session, and
I
> appreciate you comments.  It is these comments that allow us to
improve
> our work.
> 
> If I recall, you were the one who referred us to the WG charter.
> Contents of version -03 of the ro-taxonomy draft is exactly tailored
> according to what is spelt out in the WG charter. (Unless the WG
charter
> is once again changed and I wasn't aware of ....)
> 
> Now people are complaining the draft is too long.
> 
> >From the WG charter, we are not required to come up with a *short*
> problem statement draft.  We are, however, required to come up with a
> *detailed* problem statement *and* looks at various approaches to
> solving the problem.
> 
> I am not against a concise problem statement draft that is short and
> sweet.  I like that too.  In fact, I would say that the problem
> statement section of the draft-ro-taxonomy is quite short (3-5 pages,
as
> you and Hesham suggested).  If the WG changes the charter to reflect
> that, I will gladly copy and paste the appropriate sections from
> ro-taxonomy-03.txt to a new short problem statement draft.
> 
> However, IMHO, we should not remove the WG charter on coming up with
an
> informational document on ro solution space analysis.  It is a useful
> document that records the WG experiences on the route optimization
> solution space.  If the WG wants a short problem statement draft, then
> let's have a WG problem statement draft *and* a WG
> solution-space-analysis draft.
> 
> About your last comment on secuirty risks, I agree we should have a
> general security consdierations text that is not solution-space
> specific.  I will add this in -04.  But, I will not remove the
security
> risks discussions specific to each approach.  Again, as pointed out by
> the WG charter (the charter that I know of, anyway): "security
> considerations for the various approaches will also be considered".
> 
> /rgds
> /cwng
> 
> On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 23:56, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> > > The world did not freeze the day NEMO as a WG decided to focus on
> > > basic.
> >
> > Oh didn't it :-)
> >
> > > We as a WG could afford some catching now. In fact, that is one
goal
> > > if the taxonomy draft, and dismissing that could be a huge waste.
> >
> > Pascal, the taxonomy draft-03 is a nice piece of work.  I had a
detalied
> > look over it yesterday and wanted to make a detalied review later,
but
> > since you talk about it now, may I give high-level remarks.
> >
> > The WG item on problem statement is good to be short 3-5 pages IMHO.
> > How about deciding in advance about the max number of pages and
stick
> > to that.
> >
> > The current draft could be shortened by removing entirely the
> > comparative analysis of the various solutions, maybe that could be a
> > separate draft.  IMHO only the abstract and the 1st section are
exactly
> > problem statement.
> >
> > If this is done, then it is no longer a "taxonomy" draft, it becomes
> > more of a "problem statement" draft.
> >
> > The draft could be further shortened by reducing the big
> > encapsulation/long path illustrations from 3 MR's to 2.  IT is
enough
> > for a reader to interpret the meaning of it by just using 1 and 2
> > example MR's.   The logical extension from one and two to $n$
happens in
> > the reader's mind as easy as the extension from one and two and
three to
> > $n$ and the description is shorter if only two MR's.  This reduction
> > also reduces the risk of introducing spec errors.  Such an error is
> > already there: HAofMR5 is talked about but not pictured; instead MR6
is
> > pictured but not talked about.
> >
> > Second, there is a specific problem of NEMO Basic Support named
> > "cross-over" tunnels, mentioned at http://tinyurl.com/4z4kc see
Section
> > B.6; there it is shown how a specific mobility configuration (HA in
the
> > moving network and moving networks exchanging their positions) is
not
> > supported by NEMO BAsic Support.  I see this mobility configuration
> > problem as an important problem on the protocol itself, I mean the
> > protocol does not support such a configuration.  In addition, there
may
> > be other similar mobility configurations that are not supported by
NEMO
> > Basic Support.
> >
> > Finally, about the current draft taxonomy 03 and Security
> > Considerations.  There are important Security problems when
discussing
> > RO for NEMO; at the same time many security aspects of various
solutions
> > have been discussed, but I'd keep these out of this document.  In
the WG
> > RO item I'd only mention a unique Security Considerations section
that
> > only says what are the security risks of having a prefix at CN.  Not
to
> > say the draft does not do it, but that the draft has too many
security
> > risks described, each attach to a single solution; it's too
scattered.
> > Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:45:54 +0100

> I agree with Chan Wah.

And I agree with both of you.

> Also, Alex mentioned at the WG that the draft might be written a
> partial way, implicitly promoting some solutions. And that for that
> reason, it could not be used as a base for the WG draft, as proposed
> by the chairs. But then, Alex did not come up with any specific on
> this in his following (and appreciated) review.

Pascal, there was a misunderstanding, sorry for that, let me explain.
Very often during discussions in this WG you've claimed that RRH and
Tree Discovery are a panacea for all RO needs.  And not to mention HAHA,
and now Global HAHA which was presented in the multi-homing slot.

It is mostly to these remarks that I reacted.  The current draft is
called draft-thubert-taxonomy and I read several of
draft-thubert-something and did my homework and commented on the mailing
list only to get very little real communication.  This is my personal
oppinion.

It is on the other hand that draft-thubert-taxonomy-03 is a radical
change since my last read (maybe 02) and thank you for that.  I wonder
if this is due to the change in authorship, but I don't necessarily need
a response.  It was an error from my part to qualify the partiality of
draft-thubert-taxonomy-03.

Alex