Hi Anthony: It seems the REQ-4 is changed a lot. Interworking between trusted administrative domains is good to me, and the interworking with existing network deployments which are not DMM enablded is also very important. I believe we have already have consistency about this. So, how about mergering this two parts as following ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DMM solutions SHALL support existing network deployment with IPv6 (e.g. existing IPv6 address assignment), be compatible with other mobility protocols, and be interoperable with the network or the mobile hosts/routers that do not support the DMM enabling protocol so that the existing network deployments and end hosts are not broken. Furthermore, the DMM solution MUST NOT break when being deployed between trusted administrative domains and SHOULD allow inter-working with the security measures deployed between these domains. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hope this make sense. BR Luowen h chan <[email protected]> 发件人: [email protected] 2012/06/06 01:26 收件人 "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Peter McCann <[email protected]>, jouni korhonen <[email protected]> 抄送 主题 Re: [DMM] draft requirement REQ-4: compatibility Replacing REQ-4 with the following: REQ-4: compatibility The DMM solution MUST NOT break when being deployed between trusted administrative domains and SHOULD allow inter-working with the security measures deployed between these domains. Existing network deployment and end hosts also SHOULD NOT break. H Anthony Chan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of h chan Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:02 PM To: Peter McCann; jouni korhonen Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DMM] draft requirement REQ-4: compatibility An attempt to clean up the text for REQ-4: REQ-4: compatibility The DMM solutions SHALL support existing network deployment with IPv6 (e.g. existing IPv6 address assignment), be compatible with other mobility protocols, and be interoperable with the network or the mobile hosts/routers that do not support the DMM enabling protocol so that the existing network deployments and end hosts are not broken. REQ-4M (Motivation for REQ-4) Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is not to break existing network deployments and end hosts. OTHER related problem O-PS3: Complicated deployment with too many variants and extensions of MIP Deployment is complicated with many variants and extensions of MIP. When introducing new functions which may add to the complicity, existing solutions are more vulnerable to break. H Anthony Chan -----Original Message----- From: Peter McCann Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 10:00 AM To: jouni korhonen; h chan Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [DMM] draft requirement REQ-4: compatibility Hi, Jouni, jouni korhonen wrote: > > On May 7, 2012, at 9:04 PM, h chan wrote: > >> REQ-4: compatibility >> The DMM solutions SHALL support existing network deployment with >> IPv6 >> (e.g. existing IPv6 address assignment), be compatible with other >> mobility protocols, and be interoperable with the network or the >> mobile hosts/routers that do not support the DMM enabling protocol so >> that the existing network deployments are unaffected. >> >> REQ-4M (Motivation for REQ-4) >> Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to be able to work >> with network architectures of both hierarchical networks and flattened >> networks, so that the mobility management protocol possesses enough >> flexibility to support different networks, and so that the existing >> networks and hosts are not affected and do not break. > > Isn't the motivation just "SHALL not break existing network > deployments and end hosts" ? > Either the network or the host may not have any idea of the solutions > developed in DMM. I think that's a reasonable simplification. We need a strategy for backwards compatibility. -Pete > - JOuni > >> >> OTHER related problem O-PS3: Complicated deployment with too many >> variants and extensions of MIP Deployment is complicated with many >> variants and extensions of > MIP. When introducing new functions which may add to the complicity, > existing solutions are more vulnerable to break. >> >> (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 _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
