Re: how mobile do we want to be

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

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:12:02 +0100
Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
> > So please let's do this shim in peace and revisit the interaction
> > with  other stuff when there is something concrete to build on.
> > 
> > 
> Yes, that was the clear consensus of the multi6 discussion
> and that's why the shim6 draft charter is the way it is. I see
> no value in restarting that debate.

Would you explain me what is the purpose of a BOF if you exclude
discussions ? Just don't do BOF and straight approve the WG then. 

Should be easy now given your recent functions, but it won't do any good
to the reputation of the IETF;-)

> It's very important that the charter excludes this discussion, so
> that when the WG starts it can write the shim6 specifications
> without distraction.

There are different ways to excude a discussion from a debate. 

One is to say "discussion related to mobility" is excluded from this
charter, but this looks a bit like stalinism. I didn't know (well, I
should say "believe" ) the IETF works this way.

Another one is saying that "initially the WG will focus only on site
multihoming" but "will later investigate the impact on exisiting
protocols, particularly mobility related ones such as MIPv6, NEMO,
FMIPv6, HMIPv6". Such phrasins works (at least it works in the NEMO WG
where we were succesful to concentrate on a basic solution while leaving
the appealing route optimization for once the NEMO Basic Support spec is
released. I think it can work for Shim6 too).

I give more credits to the mail sent by  Kurtis:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:21:16 +0200 (EET)
Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> wrote 
> 	Thierry,
> 
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Thierry Ernst wrote:
> > opportunity window and that we may be losing a good opportunity to
> > solve once for all the mobility problem if we don't investigate it
> > further.
> 
> During the BOF I made the point that there is little or nothing
> special with mobility in the context of shim6. And I personally think
> that what input is needed should come from mobile working groups. But
> we need to work on some form of update to the charter also with the
> ADs.

Yes,  I think that the intention behind my many mails is some kind of
update to the draft charter to reflect the past discussions and
concerns. But please allow me to comment again if I don't see the
concerns reasonably well addressed.


Thierry