How about the following: The DMM solutions MUST provide transparency above the IP layer when needed. Such transparency is needed, for example, upon change of point of attachment to the Internet for the application flows that cannot cope with a change of IP address. Otherwise the support to maintain a stable home IP address or prefix during handover may be declined.
Or The DMM solutions MUST enable transparency above the IP layer. Such transparency is needed, for example, upon change of point of attachment to the Internet for the application flows that cannot cope with a change of IP address. Otherwise the support to maintain a stable home IP address or prefix during handover may be declined. H Anthony Chan -----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:39 AM To: h chan Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DMM] Comment on Req2 transparency for DMM H Anthony, Yes, this reflects Sri's and my suggestion about removal of MN/MR qualifier. I agree with the idea of the new text as you put it. Then, if I re-read just like that, there still seems to be some difficulty to my brain to understand: Le 01/08/2012 23:35, h chan a écrit : > The DMM solutions MUST provide transparency above the IP layer when > needed, such as upon change of point of attachment to the Internet, > for the application flows that cannot cope with a change of IP > address. Otherwise the support to maintain a stable home IP address > or prefix during handover may be declined. I don't understand the last phrase - the 'otherwise' relates to the first MUST? Or to the latter 'cannot'? But this may be just nitpicking on the use of language. I agree with the direction of the idea and thank you for having provided the modification. Alex _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
