Rute, Can you explain why it is necessary to introduce the term user centricity here?
For the following comment, user centricity is a term used by some researcher in a sense analogous to the terms scalability, backward compatibility, etc. Yet I don't know whether the use of this term is considered essential to most people. If people are not convinced, we will remove user centricity. I will leave to Rute to do the explanation. H Anthony Chan > OTHER related problem > O-PS1: Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer communication > While mobility management enables a mobile host to be reachable, the hosts > may then communicate directly so that the mobility support is no longer > needed. Taking the need of mobility support as the default behavior will > waste network resources. > O-PS2: Lack of user-centricity > Centralized deployment compared with distributed mobility management may be > less capable to support user-centricity. Example in the lack of > user-centricity is to provide mobility support to all mobile nodes by default > regardless of whether the user needs it or not. I have issues to parse O-PS2.. the motivation makes sense though but the title "lack of user-centricity" is somewhat confusing.. what does forced/always-on mobility support has to do with user centricity? -----Original Message----- From: jouni korhonen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 6:57 PM To: h chan Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DMM] draft requirement REQ-2: Transparency to Upper Layers Few comments/questions here: On May 7, 2012, at 8:58 PM, h chan wrote: > REQ-2: Transparency to Upper Layers > The DMM solutions SHALL enable transparency above the IP layer. Such > transparency is needed for the application flows that cannot cope with a > change of IP address and when mobile hosts or entire mobile networks change > their point of attachment to the Internet, but SHOULD NOT be taken as the > default behavior. "SHALL enable" but "SHOULD NOT be taken as the default behavior" seem to conflict. So, what is really meant here? Does this mean something like "MUST implement, SHOULD use" type of solution? Or can one leave transparency completely away if the applications/hosts just don't care whether IP changes or not? > > REQ-2M (Motivation for REQ-2) > The goal of this requirement is to > enable more efficient use of network resources and more efficient routing by > not invoking mobility support when there is no such need. Does this still mean the mobility support must be implement even if it is not used? > > RELEVANT problem: > PS5: Wasting resources to support mobile nodes not needing mobility support > IP mobility support is not always required. For example, some applications do > not need a stable IP address during handover, i.e. IP session continuity. > Sometimes, the entire application session runs while the terminal does not > change the point of attachment. In these situations that do not require IP > mobility support, network resources are wasted when mobility context is set > up. Network resources are also wasted when the via routes are set up for many > MNs that do not require IP mobility support. > > OTHER related problem > O-PS1: Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer communication > While mobility management enables a mobile host to be reachable, the hosts > may then communicate directly so that the mobility support is no longer > needed. Taking the need of mobility support as the default behavior will > waste network resources. > O-PS2: Lack of user-centricity > Centralized deployment compared with distributed mobility management may be > less capable to support user-centricity. Example in the lack of > user-centricity is to provide mobility support to all mobile nodes by default > regardless of whether the user needs it or not. I have issues to parse O-PS2.. the motivation makes sense though but the title "lack of user-centricity" is somewhat confusing.. what does forced/always-on mobility support has to do with user centricity? - Jouni > > (The above has been drafted with contributions, inputs and discussions from > various people. Additional contributions and comments are most welcome.) > > H Anthony Chan > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
