RE: comments on draft-py-multi6-gapi-00.txt

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

Brian,

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Can't we just accept that only a two-layer solution that
> separates identfier-addresses from locator-addresses can
> solve this puzzle, and move on to figure out the two-layer
> solution?

I would not mind at all! 8-)))))

However, looking pragmatically at the situation may put a grain of salt
into this.

First, I will point out that this WG has not produced jack since its
inception. A year ago, when I was whining about deadlines and asking how
many YEARS behind schedule we needed to be before someone finally sticks
their head out of their @55, I was labeled "hysteric". Well, 12 more
months have passed and we still are nowhere. Kudos to Joe Abley for
trying, but no cigar for the WG.

AS of today, this WG is not even looking at solutions; I don't see how
it could make the decision to move on studying ID/LOC solutions out of
the blue.

I think this is beside the point anyway. When, less than a year ago, out
of frustration about this WG not going anywhere, I founded ipv6mh, the
temptation of making it a MHAP-only list was great. Instead, I chose the
path to open it to host solutions and to solutions close to PI such as
GFN. In the past year, I have mostly worked on anything but my own
draft, and I don't regret it. We have produced GAPI and there are ideas
in it that came from the GFN part that will benefit MHAP. The way ipv6mh
works is that we look at multiple solutions, cannibalize the parts we
like and try to do something with them. Not including some solutions
might make us miss something.

Michel.