I think the document has some basic issues that have not be clearified, and don't think it is ready for WG adoption.
I am still not convinced yet that get the app developer get involved in the choice of mobility scheme is a good idea. But even here we assume that would be acceptable. then there are still additional considerations. Q1. Whether it is suitable for app to select different types of IP address (1)What information should be communicated from application to the host. One option is the app only indicates whether it could cope with mobility or not, another option is the app indicates specific type of IP address type. Also there might be some other options. (2)In which level the option should be set by setsockopt(). I think at least there are two choices, the first one is in SOL_SOCKET, and the second one is IPPROTO_IPV6. Not only the network layer could provide mobility support but also other layers such as transport layer. Q2. Whether the IP address defined here is ok? For example, if nomadic address is defined, and then application developer is told that the nomadic address "provides neither IP session continuity nor IP address reachability", then how the developr will think of it. I am sure they will never want to use such an address. For the definition of fixed address and sustained address, I don't see the reason why we need both of them in a network. Q3. How should the network side support the solution is not quite clear. Is the current architecture defined in other work group could support this needs to be clarified. Q4. People should be aware of there is an IPR in this doc. -Xinpeng ________________________________________ 发件人: dmm [[email protected]] 代表 Jouni Korhonen [[email protected]] 发送时间: 2015年4月4日 8:03 收件人: [email protected]; Jouni; Dapeng Liu; [email protected] 主题: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03 Folks, This email starts a two week adoption call for the I-D draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03 to confirm its adoption as a DMM WG document and as a basis for the technical solution. The call ends April 17th EOB PDT. Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the IETF92 meeting we got 10 voices for the adoption and 3 against. we expect at least the same amount of expressed opinions on the list. Notice that version -01 of this I-D had an IPR declared to it. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2309/ - Jouni & Dapeng _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
