Re: Resolving geo discussions

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 06:00:55AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Absolutely, and it's just 3 months to Vienna and the restoration of the
> > multi6 sessions at the meetings.  We should have some idea soon of
> > what will be on the table there
> 
> what are you putting on it?

I predict a bottle of water, glasses and a microphone or two.

First we need to decide what to do about the current (only) multi6 I-D.  It 
needs to be either signed off or removed and replaced with a less restrictive 
(perhaps more open minded) set of requirements.   

I like Christian's proposal.  It offers what appears to be a sane path
to at least solve some useful classes of scenario.   And we have this as
a good proposal in spite of no agreed requirements document, so I think
we can also put forward other potential solutions too.

I think if we can set an agenda now, and decide what is on that table, we 
can maybe have some fruitful, focused discussion before Vienna.   Is MHAP 
on the table?  GSE?  HIP?  ....?    Some solutions may not fly, but we
should at least ensure they get a good airing in an official IETF session
rather than just in the ipv6mh meetings, as (very) good as they are.

At least let's make sure there is a meeting in Vienna.  It seems a lot
of people just assumed there would be a San Francisco multi6, given it
seen as the last Big Issue for IPv6 by a fair few people.   Let's even
consider getting some possible solutions on board as WG items in July.

Tim