Subject: [nemo] What kind of NEMO RO problem WG document we would like to see

From: "Fan Zhao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:05:39 -0800 (PST)

Dear NEMO WG members,

IMHO, draft-thubert-nemo-ro-taxonomy-03 is far from what NEMO RO problem 
Wg document 
should be. (Sorry, Pascal and Chan-Wah, please see the following text and 
my another 
email about comments on your solution space analysis part.) 

I feel at this moment WG should consider What 
kind of NEMO RO problem WG document we would like to see rather than 
which 
draft should be picked as the WG item. Once we reach the consensus on 
that,
we can go back to see if any existing draft meets or is close to meet our 
needs 
then it can become WG document without question, otherwise if there is no 
one, 
we have to work on the new document that we want to see. We already have 
four
NEMo RO problem related drafts that all are good inputs to the WG 
document.
It is inefficient if we spend the duplicate efforts on the same subject.
 
Below is my vision about NEMO RO problem WG document: 
1. NEMO RO problem draft should be written in an abstract way rather than 
solution-specific.
(from calos's email on the ML if I am not wrong.)
2. It does not matter how many pages the problem statement part should 
be, but it must be
to the core of the problem.
3. The solution "space" analysis part must not just simply list the 
previouly proposed 

solutions. 
4. It should be able to analyze the complete solution space including the 
proposed and the new ones. (The completeness should be assured in certain 
level.)
5. The method to categorize the solution space must be able to make one 
category not
intersect with any other category (mutual exclusive). 
6. The solution space analysis does not judge on the strength and 
weakness of each solution.
7. The security analysis should be general rather than being solution-
specific. Also it 

should be easy to apply to each solution. 
8. The solution space analysis part must focus on the core idea because
there could be an infinite number of solutions that are in the different 
forms.

We also have to think about the content of WG document.  

BTW my presentation slides in IETF 61 is available at 
http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/
zhaofa/NEMORO/ietf61.ppt. I am very sorry I have not finished updating my 
draft.
If anyone is interested, I will be very happy to talk about it in more 
details on ML. 
The biggest update is to use the vector <from to initiator method> to 
categorize the
solution space. And also we show that it is possible to extend the 
solution achieving RO
when CN is not under the same NEMO network to achieve the RO when CN is 
under the same
NEMO network, which could be an alternative to MANET. I will make my new 
draft available
ASAP. Your comments are very welcomed.

Sincerely,
fan

---

From: Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:17:12 +0800

Hello Fan,

> email about comments on your solution space analysis part.) 

Don't have to be sorry, you are entitled to your own opinion.

> It is inefficient if we spend the duplicate efforts on the same subject.

I agree with you ... partially.  Without setting up a new WG document,
your proposal on first listing the contents and structure of the WG
document will ultimately lead to all authors of the four drafts
submitting four different drafts based on the same contents and
structure, ... and that is a duplicate of effort.

It is not necessary a bad thing, since that way, it is easier to merge
all 4 drafts.  I am just saying that your point on less/no duplicate
efforts is unlikely to happen.

> Below is my vision about NEMO RO problem WG document: 

As I mentioned, you are welcomed to describe your opinions, but
ultimately, we must use the WG charter as the guideline to be adhered
to.  So, in general, I agree with your list, until those parts that are
not in agreement to what the current charter states.

> intersect with any other category (mutual exclusive).

That may be desirable, but difficult to achieve.  It runs the risk of
being in conflict with your point #4 above.  To strictly demand mutual
exclusiveness will often leads to incompleteness.  To me, having mutual
exclusive approach is only something that is preferable, but not of high
priority.  Instead it is the completeness that we should try to achieve.
(Your choice of words "should" in #4 and "must" in #5 seems to indicate
you felt otherwise).

What advantages does mutual exclusive solution space partitioning gives
us?

> weakness of each solution.

An analysis should try to be as objective as possible.  That goes
without saying.  But what is the use of an analysis if it does not
points out the relative strength and weakness of each approach?  (I
prefer to use the term 'approach' rather than 'solution', as the latter
can often be interpreted as the 'solution described in
draft-foo-bar-xx.txt').  Instead, I think what you are trying to say is
that the analysis should not try to steer readers into thinking one
approach is better than the other.  The best way to ahieve this is for
it to list the weakness and strength of each approach.  True, the
initial version of that analysis may reflect only the views of the
author, and seems not impartial.  But through peer reviews, we would
ultimately leads to a piece of analysis to reflect the true streangth
and weakness of an approach.

> should be easy to apply to each solution. 

Nope.  Not according to the WG charter.  There should be a general
security consideration section that will applies to most (if not all)
approaches, that I agree.  But why insisting on no security
consideration for specific approach puzzles me.

> there could be an infinite number of solutions that are in the different 

You then run into the danger of being too vague.   There is a reason why
different solutions are being proposed that seems to carry the same core
idea.  Often, this occurs because one proposal improves some small
deficencies of a previous proposal (while at the same time containing
new deficiencies).   It is through documenting these subtle differences
that we would be documenting the WG's experiecne on route optimization. 

<snipped>
> Your comments are very welcomed.
> 

Oh, you will definitely get my comments once I get back to my own
time-zone.  Can't think critically with a highly-caffinated mind .... ;)

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: "Eun Kyoung PAIK" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:50:54 +0900

Hi Fan and all,

Please see in line comments.

> and weakness of an approach.

I also think that the list of the weakness and strength of each approach
support is useful in this draft, since this draft is for problem statement
(not for requirements).

> consideration for specific approach puzzles me.

As Pascal commented, let's distinguish the term 'solution' and 'approach'.
This draft is not supposed to analyze security in terms of any specific
solution (draft-xx-.txt), but will consider security with the various
approaches (as stated in NEMO WG charter).

Regards,
Eun

---

From: "E.K. Paik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:05:49 +0900

Hi  Fan and all,

> and weakness of an approach.

I also think that the list of the weakness and strength of each approach support is useful in this draft, since this draft is for problem statement (not for requirements).

As Pascal commented, let's distinguish the term 'solution' and 'approach'.
This draft is not supposed to analyze security in terms of any specific solution (draft-xx-.txt), but will consider security with the various approaches (as stated in NEMO WG charter).

Regards,
Eun