BOUNCE multi6@ops.ietf.org: Non-member submission from [Coene Lode <Lode.Coene@siemens.com>] (fwd)

[Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

From Lode.Coene@siemens.com Fri Jan 23 16:15:33 2004
Message-ID: <57FD2C3A246F76438CA6FDAD8FE9F195A7F490@hrtades7.atea.be>
From: Coene Lode <Lode.Coene@siemens.com>
To: "'mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es'" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es>, Brian E Carpenter
	 <brc@zurich.ibm.com>, "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Reminder re multi6 drafts
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:15:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

The draft mentioned is just to point out how multihoming works in SCTP and
what are the pitfalls and how to avoid them.
I'm in the process of producing a draft which hopefully answer the questions
Eliot Lear draft put up in december(The MULTI6 solution questionaire...)
Concerning the draft coming from Jim, Randy and Yanick, that was something
along the lines of trying to fit SCTP on top of HIP/NOID/...fill in you
favorite 3.5 layer idea or the other way around. I have some ideas
concerning that but it isn't baked yet and might turn out to be a clear
layer 3 protocol. But it won't come out before Seoul.(that is my draft...)

... Back to having fun at the weekend....

Yours sincerely,
Lode

From: marcelo bagnulo [mailto:mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es]
Sent: vrijdag 23 januari 2004 16:32
To: Brian E Carpenter; Bound, Jim
Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Reminder re multi6 drafts


There was a draft by Lode submited a while ago about multihoming issues and
sctp

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-coene-sctp-multihome-04.txt

Perhaps this could be a starting point?

Regards, marcelo

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org]En
> nombre de Brian E Carpenter
> Enviado el: viernes, 23 de enero de 2004 11:45
> Para: Bound, Jim
> CC: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: Re: Reminder re multi6 drafts
>
>
> Jim,
>
> We understand of course that there are only 168 hours a week.
>
> The WG will have to take an architectural decision at some point
> whether to pursue transport layer solution(s). Without the SCTP
> case being on the table, we will be handicapped. If anybody else
> feels like doing even a superficial job on SCTP in the next few
> days, that would be very helpful.
>
>    Brian
>
> "Bound, Jim" wrote:
> >
> > SCTP will not happen before this month.  Randy, Yanick, and I cannot get
> > it done.  Sorry.
> > /jim
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org
> > > [mailto:owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:36 PM
> > > To: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: Reminder re multi6 drafts
> > >
> > >
> > > It's getting very close to the end of January. We are still
> > > hoping for HIP and SCTP based drafts this month, so that they can
> > > be thoroughly analyzed before the IETF.
> > >
> > >    Brian
> > >
> > > Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Just a reminder that we'd like all updated or new drafts describing
> > > > possible approaches to solutions for multi6 to be submitted in the
> > > > near future. We originally suggested a hard deadline of the end
> > > > of December, but since people found that too rigid, let's try for
> > > > having all the I-Ds available by mid-January at the latest.
> > > > In addition to the existing proposals discussed in Minneapolis,
> > > > we are at least expecting HIP and SCTP based contributions.
> > > >
> > > > We do ask that each draft includes a *short*
> > > self-assessment against the
> > > > goals in RFC 3582. For convenience, please name them as
> > > >   draft-AUTHOR-multi6-...
> > > >
> > > > Please remember that one of our objectives is to identify
> > > architectural
> > > > components that occur in the various proposals.
> > > >
> > > > The co-chairs are acutely aware that the published charter for this
> > > > WG is out of date. We do plan to fix that.
> > > >
> > > >    Brian
> > > >    multi6 co-chair
> > > > --
>