Subject: RE: [nemo] Re: Comments ondraft-clausen-nemo-ro-problem-statement-00.txt

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:48:02 +0100

Hi Ryuji

> >
> > But We can not say 'any MANET' will do. We must explicit what our
> > priorities are and what features we care for. And we must come back
> > with a single MANET version so there's a chance to get standard
> > track one day.
> 
> I did not say "any MANET";-)

Never meant you did :)

> 
> The draft is problem statement and tries to expose the possibility of
> MANET to some NEMO issue.
> 

Right: there's the high level perspective (the problem statement level)
where we say " MANET here can do this and that for NEMO" and the
detailed level where we would actually characterize the features in the
instance that would fit the problem best. I'm afraid I'm going too deep
in the latter for the sake of the current charter. It's still an
interesting discussion. If people are interested in pursuing it, maybe
we could set up a separate list?

<snip snap snup>
 
> well, the discussion of RO solution is not begun yet, too.
> But it might be true that we need more thoughts on this with people
> from NEMO and MANET WG.

Agreed.

Pascal

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:03:22 +0900

Hello Pascal

At Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:48:02 +0100,
> we could set up a separate list?

I believe the part of RO discussion (for nested case) contains routing
issue. This is why we brought up the MANET problem staement draft.
However, MANET protocols might be too big for these issues.  There
must be several different approaches (like TD) for this routing
issue. And the approaches must be fit to NEMO basic support, too.

regards,
ryuji