Some comments on Tonys question

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


<as chair>

After Vienna, there are two design teams working on solutions. I expect 
the discussion following Tonys question to be useful input to both of 
the teams. Calling consensus for or against is hard to do without more 
specific details. We have also in front of us the task of merging or 
picking the result of one of the teams. I don't see a point in 
discussing this before we in  more detail know what they will propose. 
But I think the discussion following Tonys post was good.

As for if the id/loc discussion belongs in multi6, I absolutely think 
it does. As Sean said, as long as work is being done somewhere that is 
better than arguing where it should be. In general I believe that 
multi6 should weigh the operational impact for and against all 
solutions, as well as look at what solution is most scalable, feasible, 
etc in the long run. multi6 job is to define this solution to the 
detail we need. Where the development of a protocol for this is done, 
will be for the ADs in the future to decide.

Best regards,

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBPzjwOqarNKXTPFCVEQLQUgCg/R4KiF2wlgJ5qEjfqNcITiVqaZ4AniKA
PZ+0oOkdO/c4ORK9LTno8/7q
=ZkGY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----