Haibin, > I would answer "yes" to the first two questions you raised.
Well, I disagree with both, but I am willing to learn from real-world data. > It is easy to generalize the mobile and proxy based scenarios > I raised, or even generalize the whole document into only one > short paragraph such like "find the resource consumer's > domain name, then use the U-NAPTR method with the new defined > service tag...", if we do not go to the details. As I mentioned before, there is a quite a number of IETF protocols providing mobility (in a somehow loose sense): - Proxy Mobile IP - Mobile IPv4 (MIPv4) - Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) - Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) - NEMO - SHIM6 - HIP - LISP (partly) - ... Do you argue that we have to go into technical details for all of them? Do you plan to write that text? Or do you argue that MIPv4 (which your suggested text apparently assumes) is the only relevant protocol that ALTO discovery has to consider in details? Note that the current draft already has text on mobility and NAT, unlike for instance RFC 5986. I agree that in addition to NAT, proxies should be mentioned. And we should indeed highlight that the IP address that is used for communication actually matters, in particular also in mobility scenarios. But beyond that, I really wonder how you want to specify in detail how to deal with the wide variety of mobility and proxy solutions known in the IETF. This could end up in an endless story. Michael _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
