I don't think decoupling mobility from routing should be listed as a design requirement. I don't think we can eliminate the possibility of routing inherently providing mobility.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:47 AM, George, Wes E [NTK] < wesley.e.geo...@sprint.com> wrote: > > -----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 > -- DY
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
