Goals for Network-Based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter) No Objection
I guess I'm less picky about 'goals' documents that some other ADs. My view is that this is a useful document as long as nobody tries to interpret it rigidly as 'requirements.' Two editorial matters from Gen-ART review by John Loughney: 1) Contributor section at the beginning seems odd, and the second sentence seems a bit gratitous. I'd suggest moving it to the acknowledgement section and dropping the last sentence. Gerardo Giaretta, Kent Leung, Katsutoshi Nishida, Phil Roberts, and Marco Liebsch all contributed major effort to this document. Their names are not included in the authors' section due to the RFC Editor's limit of 5 names. 2) The 1 sentence abstract is a bit weak, ... it could state a bit more.
(Lisa Dusseault) (was Yes) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
Comment (2006-08-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
My main concern with this document is that many of the goals are pretty vague and cannot be objectively verified. As such, I don't see what purpose this document really has. Many of the goals are generic and can apply to pretty much any protocol and there is significant overlap between different goals. The gap analysis in Section 8 would be useful. However, in its current form, it doesn't present either the different existing proposals or the arguments for why they evaluate in a certain way for the different goals in sufficient detail to understand the conclusion. Section 2.1, paragraph 2: > A goal of the protocol is to reduce the loss of accurate forwarding > to reduce interruptions which may cause user-perceptible service > degradation for real time traffic such as voice. The previous paragraph states a stricter goal ("IP handover time should be between 40-70 ms") than this. "Reduce loss of accurate forwarding" is pretty vague. Section 2.2, paragraph 4: > The goal is that handover signaling volume from the mobile node to > the network should be no more than what is needed for the mobile > node to perform secure IP level movement detection, in cases where > no link layer support exists. "No more than what is needed" is not an objective criteria. Section 2.5, paragraph 1: > Therefore, any solutions for localized > mobility management should minimize signaling within the wired > network as well. There is overlap among goals 2 ("Reduction in Handover-related Signaling Volume"), 4 ("Efficient Use of Wireless Resources") and 5 ("Limit the Signaling Overhead in the Network"). Because pretty much all signaling will be handover-related, goal 2 already subsumes goal 5 and especially goal 4. Additionally, some of these goals ("minimize signaling", etc.) aren't verifiable Section 2.7, paragraph 3: > The goal is that the localized mobility management protocol should > not use any wireless link specific information for basic routing > management, though it may be used for other purposes, such as > identifying a mobile node. Why is this goal specific to wireless links? I'd recommend to erase the word "wireless" in Section 2.7 (and possibly the entire document). Section 2.10, paragraph 0: > 2.10 Re-use of Existing Protocols Where Sensible (Goal #10) How is this specific to NETLMM? How is this objectively verifiable? Candidate for removal. Section 7.0, paragraph 0: > 7.0 Informative References No normative references? Section 8.0, paragraph 0: > 8.0 Appendix: Gap Analysis This appendix should probably be expanded and become a standalone document. In its current form, it doesn't present either the different existing proposals or the arguments for why they evaluate in a a certain way for the different goals in sufficient detail to understand the conclusion.
(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection
In the write-up, Vidya's name is not spelled correctly. Narayanan is correct.