Re: how mobile do we want to be

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

> > 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].
> 
> I'm sorry, but forcing a multihoming solution to address mobility and 
> multicast as well is insane. 

Did I wrote I was not speaking about the charter but deployment ?

> There is no evidence that layer 3
> mobility  is even useful or necessary, and the repeated claim that so
> many  devices will be mobile without addressing the question whether
> these  devices will actually want or need layer 4 sessions to move
> from one  address to another only supports my suspicion that mobility
> is an  answer in search of a question. Interdomain multicast doesn't
> exist if  we round down to a reasonable number of digits.

This is a short-sighted point of view. There is no question to me that
most of the sessions will have to sustain layer 3 handoffs (I mean, if
we deploy the right IP technology, the applications and usages will want
it). But since this is a point of view on things which don't exist yet,
I'm afraid that the discussion is a rat-hole.

> And regardless of the merits of these technologies, _I_ am not willing
>  to work on multihoming if mobility and multicast must be supported in
> the first version of the protocol, because I can't spare the
> additional  time and I'm unwilling to accept the additional risk of
> failure. I  suspect the same is true for most others who've been
> active in multi6.

So, in this case you shouldn't have any concern, see at the end of this
mail (you would a peace to focus on this **initially**).

> So please let's do this shim in peace and revisit the interaction with
>  other stuff when there is something concrete to build on.

If you want peace I'm afraid the IETF is not the right place to do it
;-) 

If your point of view is that people like me who are sceptical about
the words in the current charter shouldn't express their concerns, then
go ahead, and there is no needs for BOF, charter, and so on at the IETF
anymore. 

Note - I'm repeating myself - than I don't say I oppose a WG, but:

- I think experimental RFC would make better sense than draft standards 
(this would give room to work on a focused topic without risk such an
architectural change is deployed without considering mobility; at
the same time this would allow time for other researching on the
mobility aspects so that draft standards are produced when the question
has been fully pondered. 

  => I would like to make sure this point is discussed when the WG is to
be approved/disapproved.

- a twin IRTF work would be nice to look into the wider aspects such as
mobility

- a word saying that the WG will focus on the sole site
multihoming aspect initially, but that it will consider mobility
later 

- a word saying that the shim6 solution must make sure other standards
such as MIP6, NEMO can work unchanged (no hurt - this was seconded by
other people on this thread and at the BOF): this implies an analysis
document.

Thierry