Subject: [lmap] Feedback on draft-nagami-lmap-use-case-measurement-provider

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:27:28 +0200

Dear authors,

Next to the points I made regarding to draft-linsner-lmap-use-cases, 
which are applicable here as well, I have one extra point: I like the 
fact that the draft covers the smartphone. This use case is completely 
different. I might not care if a MA generates some packets from my home, 
but I care if this is from my smartphone and my bill is pay per volume. 
The roaming price are still expensive.

One of the goal behind this email is to generate discussions, either on 
the list, or during the IETF meeting next week.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Nagami Kenichi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 02:32:10 +0900

Hi Benoit,

Thank you for comment.

> Next to the points I made regarding to draft-linsner-lmap-use-cases, which
> are applicable here as well, I have one extra point: I like the fact that
> the draft covers the smartphone. This use case is completely different. I
> might not care if a MA generates some packets from my home, but I care if
> this is from my smartphone and my bill is pay per volume. The roaming price
> are still expensive.

I think it depends on the mobile service environment.
If the fee is determined by the amount of traffic as you wrote,
it is difficult that a smartphone becomes MA.
If the fee is flat rate, a smartphone becomes MA.
In our experiment, 2000 smartphones participated as MA
 because the fee is flat rate.

Regards,
Ken Nagami