RE: how mobile do we want to be

[Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>]

> P.S. Chairs I believe there is consensus we are to focus on multihoming
> and not mobility.  If I am correct my input is for you to shut down this
> discussion and many mails that are doing nothing to further the delivery
> of a multihoming solution.  But I will continue as above to discuss
> interesting points raised that are clear technically and worth my tiime.
> thanks



Until we have a charter passed by the IESG I believe that there is no 
working group per se, and the question of chair action is perhaps a little 
premature.

However... Speaking personally I agree with your proposition, in that I 
observe that this discussion has not exposed to me any new arguments that 
were not exhaustively covered in the multi6 stream, and I can sympathize 
with a perspective that the constant repetition of calls to broaden the 
scope of this effort is at best distracting to the shim6 effort. It's my 
personal view that there is merit in focussing the shim6 effort at a clean 
and consistent specification of the shim6 approach, and in that there is 
enough material in that alone to keep any working group productively 
engaged for a suitable amount of time.

That does not imply that the general architectural approach of splitting 
the semantics of an end point identifier and network-based locators does 
not have a rich well of topics  from which to draw from. On the contrary, 
as many groups in the past have already discovered, there is almost an 
endless stream of interesting, challenging and provocative areas of 
consideration within this generic topic area, and there will always be folk 
who would like to bite off the entire space and see if some solutions can 
be engineered that attempt to cover the entire spectrum of potential that 
is offered if one can assume some level of independence of these two 
identification spaces. But that is not where I personally  thought shim6 is 
headed, and to me this shim6 effort is a focussed activity that looks for a 
decent solution within one aspect of an admitted broader area of potential 
activity.

It may be that the level of interest in this split endpoint identifier 
network location identifier space is an indicator that the time has come 
that there is once more a sufficiently large pool of interested folk who 
may wish to resume the Name Space Research Group efforts (!) . 
Indeed,  they may well be in a position to put a decent case to the irtf 
chair  for the (re)formation of a research group on this topic. 
That  possible direction for this general consideration is, once again, 
well beyond a sensible focus for the ietf's shim6 effort, in my view.

regards,

   Geoff