> -----Original Message----- > From: rrg-boun...@irtf.org [mailto:rrg-boun...@irtf.org] On Behalf Of > Templin, Fred L > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 10:10 AM > To: RRG > Subject: [rrg] Comments on rrg-design-goals-04 > > See below for my comments on sections 3.4 and 3.5: > > Fred > fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
> Ideally, > such mechanisms should completely decouple mobility from routing. > > FLT >> Not OK. It should be perfectly OK for mobility to interact > FLT >> with the routing system as long as the routing churn is > FLT >> localized and minimized. Strike this sentence. [WES] I disagree with your recommendation here Fred, but for purely semantic reasons. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ideal Absent any other considerations, that is, ideally, the proper solution is to decouple mobility from routing. In a more practical implementation (ie not a completely ideal one), it might be ok for mobility to interact as you are saying, but I don't think that the sentence as written says that this is prohibited, only that it's not the most preferable implementation. Wes George ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
