RE: on the point of mobility & multihoming

[<john.loughney@nokia.com>]

Hi Jari,

> That could be a starting point.
> 
> I am, however, willing to make it softer if necessary. Say,
> if HIP folks believe they can solve both problems, that should
> also be allowed, assuming HIP is otherwise accepted as the MULTI6
> solution.

From a purely process point of view, that might still not be a good
idea. MIPv6 is a Proposed Standard, and if requirements were loosened
for HIP, you would have a draft (or perhaps an Experimental RFC) which
breaks an existing Proposed Standard.  Such a solution would seem
sub-optimal.

John