Re: DRAFT of the architecture presentation for the WG session this week

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> I may (will) change the presentation between now depending on the response
> from this list,, but I would obviously prefer a little shaking out in the 
> wg on the
> more generic topic of "is this architectural taxonomy on the right track" and
> "have I missed an architectural taxonomy element?"

Overall I think this is on the right track.

While in the fullness of time we want session persistence I think we need
to look carefully at what is needed to introduce multihoming when the
peers are not upgraded to use something new. I don't know if
that is what the question mark after "session persistence" on page 11.

Drilling down into the "defining a new protocol element" set there
seems to be two classes:
 - those that define a new namespace (HIP, SIM, ...)
 - those that use an existing name space such as FQDNs (MAST, NOID, CB64, ...)

With that split in mind it seems odd to clumb together the proposals on page
13; SIM is much closer to HIP (with the biggest difference being that the
payload packets are not encrypted by SIM whereas HIP encrypts everything.)

So understanding which proposals provide a new ID name space to applications
would be useful.

  Erik