Anthony,
I am fine with that. I would like feedback from the rest of the WG
on these changes.Brian On 1/29/14 1:53 PM, h chan wrote: > Delete those explanatory sentences then. > > REQ5: Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts > > The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing > network deployments and end hosts. > Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across different > networks, possibly operated as separate administrative > domains, when allowed by the trust relationship between them. > > H Anthony Chan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:br...@innovationslab.net] > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:01 AM > To: h chan; draft-ietf-dmm-requireme...@tools.ietf.org; dmm@ietf.org; Peter > McCann > Subject: Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements > > > > On 1/28/14 4:33 PM, h chan wrote: >> Regarding the following: >> >> - What is meant by co-exist in REQ5? Does this mean that a DMM solution >> does not break an existing one? Or does it mean that it must inter-operate >> with existing ones? Is this like IPv4 and IPv6 being incompatible, but can >> run concurrently on the same network? Or does this mean there needs to be >> some mechanism for interaction (i.e., like NAT64)? >> >> >> >> I think the bottom line is that the existing ones do not break. >> >> >> >> Original >> >> REQ5: Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts >> >> >> >> The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing >> >> network deployments and end hosts. For example, depending >> on >> >> the environment in which DMM is deployed, DMM solutions may >> >> need to be compatible with other deployed mobility protocols >> >> or may need to co-exist with a network or mobile >> hosts/routers >> >> that do not support DMM protocols. The mobile node may also >> >> move between different access networks, where some of them >> may >> >> support neither DMM nor another mobility protocol. >> >> Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across different >> >> networks, possibly operated as separate administrative >> >> domains, when allowed by the trust relationship between them. >> >> >> >> We can change to: >> >> REQ5: Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts >> >> >> >> The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing >> >> network deployments and end hosts without breaking them. >> For example, depending on >> >> the environment in which DMM is deployed, DMM solutions may >> >> need to be compatible with other deployed mobility protocols >> >> or may need to co-exist with a network or mobile >> hosts/routers >> >> that do not support DMM protocols. The mobile node may also >> >> move between different access networks, where some of them >> may >> >> support neither DMM nor another mobility protocol. >> >> Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across different >> >> networks, possibly operated as separate administrative >> >> domains, when allowed by the trust relationship between them. > > The "without breaking" is fine. However, the "need to be compatible with" > phrasing is still problematic. Is that inferring that in some situations > that a DMM solution would need to interact with, for example, PMIP? > > Regards, > Brian >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
