[RRG] small comment on draft-irtf-routing-reqs05

[Wesley Eddy <weddy@grc.nasa.gov>]

The document may be too far along to address this, but there is an
interesting hole that I noticed when reading draft-irtf-routing-reqs-05,
which it might be good put put an "Editor's Note" on, as there are a few
other editor's notes already.

Section 2.1.15 and 2.2.9 discuss host and network mobility.  The
decision was that since Mobile IP handles host mobility without
influencing routing, that host mobility is NOT a requirement for routing
architecture, but network mobility IS a requirement.  Since the time of
the original work that this document summarizes, NEMO has extended
Mobile IP to similarly handle mobile networks.  I wonder if the
architectural requirement to support network mobility might be removed
in light of NEMO's development and current existence.

Could this be addressed by an editor's note?  Something like this
seems appropriate:

"Since the time of this work, the NEMO extensions to Mobile IP to that
accomodate mobile networks have been developed [RFC3963].  In light of
this, it is possible that the architectural requirement to support
network mobility via routing protocols would have been relaxed if NEMO
technology had existed at the time of the original work."

-- 
Wesley M. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg