Re: how mobile do we want to be

[Thierry Ernst <ernst@sfc.wide.ad.jp>]

I thought it was "experimental", sorry for the confusion. I either
missundertood, or someone mentioned about "experimental" and I caught
that word more loudly that it really is. 

So, if it's not experimental, I even more agree with Avri that engaging
ourselves in such an architectural change may be a wrong direction or
imature or a loss of opportunity.

I second the fact that the deployment of any important architectural
change should mandate a solution to both multihoming, mobility,
security, multicast and so on.  [here, I'm speaking about deployment,
not the charter].

Thierry


On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:02:30 +1100
Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:

> At 09:56 AM 18/03/2005, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> >At 9:48 AM +1100 3/18/05, Geoff Huston wrote:
> >>I'd have to agree with Marcelo here. Its certainly my impression
> >that our  >specific mission in the context of this WG is to develop
> >the shim6 drafts  >into standards track specifications.
> >
> >We haven't officially chartered the WG yet (I'm waiting for updated 
> >charter text that reflects the BOF description, so that I can put it
> >on  the IESG agenda).
> 
> 
> true - I was careful to refer to a "mission" rather than a "charter"
> for  that reason - :-)
> 
> 
> >However, it is certainly my expectation that this group will product 
> >standards track specifications.  It says so explicitly in the charter
> >text  that we've been discussing for the past few months.
> 
> Geoff
>