I am answering the use of SHALL and SHOULD in a separate email thread on the requirements in general: DMM draft requirement discussions.
H Anthony Chan From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 1:17 AM To: h chan Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DMM] draft requirement REQ-4: compatibility Dear Anthony and LuoWen, Sorry for jumping in late to this discussion. If I have missed some prior discussion and repeat the same question, please forgive me. I agree with Anthony's view that, "“Other mobility protocols” can only refer to the existing mobility protocols that are already deployed. It cannot refer to “future protocols” or “any protocol in the literature which has not been deployed in the same environment in which dmm is being deployed. " However, when I refer to the current writing of the REQ#4: >>>>> REQ4: Compatibility The DMM solution SHOULD be able to work between trusted administrative domains when allowed by the security measures deployed between these domains. Furthermore, the DMM solution SHOULD preserve backwards compatibility with existing network deployment and end hosts. For example, depending on the environment in which dmm is deployed, the dmm solutions may need to be compatible with other existing mobility protocols that are deployed in that environment or may need to be interoperable with the network or the mobile hosts/routers that do not support the dmm enabling protocol. Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to allow inter-domain operation if desired and to preserve backwards compatibility so that the existing networks and hosts are not affected and do not break. >>>>> First question to ask is that, why the backward compatibility with existing network deployment and end hosts is "optional", and not "mandatory"? Wouldn't the compatibility with the existing deployment be the "fundamental" requirement? Hence, the "SHOULD" needs to be changed to "SHALL". Secondly, IMHO, compatibility has two aspects: (1) backward compatible with existing deployment that has been discussed above, but also (2) no impact with the mobile host but still able to enable the DMM solution at the network I don't believe that we are proposing the DMM solution requirement that must require the mobile node's support, correct? If we can agree on these two above fundamental sentiment, then, I would like to suggest a friendly amendment to REQ4 as follows: >>>>> REQ4: Compatibility The DMM solution SHOULD be able to work between trusted administrative domains when allowed by the security measures deployed between these domains. Furthermore, the DMM solution SHALL preserve backwards compatibility with existing network deployment and end hosts. For example, depending on the environment in which dmm is deployed, the dmm solutions SHALL BE compatible with other existing mobility protocols that are deployed in that environment or SHOULD BE interoperable with the network or the mobile hosts/routers that do not support the dmm enabling protocol. In addition, it SHOULD BE feasible to enable DMM network solution without the necessity to impact the existing mobile hosts. Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to allow inter-domain operation if desired and to preserve backwards compatibility so that the existing networks and hosts are not affected and do not break. >>>>> Hoping that you can accept these changes. Thanks in advance. Tricci h chan <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] 06/07/2012 09:41 PM To "[email protected]" <[email protected]> cc "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Peter McCann <[email protected]> Subject Re: [DMM] draft requirement REQ-4: compatibility Luowen, I understand that we earlier had a list of at least 3 requirements bundled inside this REQ-4. We are now adding a 4th and possibly 5th into this list regarding inter-domain. So I try to simplify 3 of them by examining the end result: whether existing network deployment and end hosts will break. What the dmm solution needs to do will then depend on the environment in which it is deployed. “Other mobility protocols” can only refer to the existing mobility protocols that are already deployed. It cannot refer to “future protocols” or “any protocol in the literature which has not been deployed in the same environment in which dmm is being deployed. If you want to be more specific, I suggest to append an explanatory sentence to explain the requirement rather than adding more requirements to the list. H Anthony Chan From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 8:21 PM To: h chan Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; jouni korhonen; Peter McCann Subject: 答复: RE: Re: [DMM] draft requirement REQ-4: compatibility Hi Antony, Yes, I agree, the DMM solution shall be compatibile with the exsiting network deployments. But only say "Existing network deployment and end hosts also SHOULD NOT break" or "the DMM solution SHOULD preserve backwards compatibility with existing network deployment and end hosts" may not be very specific. how about The DMM solution SHOULD enable working between trusted administrative domains when allowed by the security measures deployed between these domains. Furthermore, the DMM solution SHOULD preserve backwards compatibility with existing network deployment and end hosts that do not support the DMM enabling protocol. And put those description such as "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." into the motivation, e.g Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to ensure the DMM solutions to support existing network deployment with IPv6 (e.g. existing IPv6 address assignment), to be compatible with other mobility protocols, and to 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. Does it make sense? BR Luowen h chan <[email protected]> 2012/06/08 07:13 收件人 "[email protected]" <[email protected]> 抄送 "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, jouni korhonen <[email protected]>, Peter McCann <[email protected]> 主题 RE: Re: [DMM] draft requirement REQ-4: compatibility Luo, I think “existing network deployments which are not DMM enablded” are included in “existing network deployments. The end result is the compatibility with existing network deployment and end hosts. So whatever the dmm solution needs to do to ensure such compatibility. Do you agree? H Anthony Chan From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:15 AM To: h chan Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; jouni korhonen; Peter McCann Subject: 答复: Re: [DMM] draft requirement REQ-4: compatibility 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 -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited. If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately.
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
