Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]

To: Multi6 List <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 11:16:22 +0200
In-reply-to: <6938661A6EDA8A4EA8D1419BCE46F24C0406072B@xch-nw-27.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Organization: IBM
References: <6938661A6EDA8A4EA8D1419BCE46F24C0406072B@xch-nw-27.nw.nos.boeing.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

Some discussion on this thread refers to dependency on HIP.

Question to the WG: given the current state of HIP, do we
want to consider dependency on HIP as

a) acceptable
b) unacceptable?

Brian (co-chair hat on)

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
  - From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
- Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
- Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
  - From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
- Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
  - From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
- Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

References:
- RE: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches
  - From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>