RE: how mobile do we want to be

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

whoops.  Good point.  We are still ad hoc?  
thanks
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Huston [mailto:gih@apnic.net] 
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 4:31 PM
> To: Bound, Jim; Ryuji Wakikawa; Margaret Wasserman
> Cc: Thierry Ernst; shim6@psg.com
> Subject: RE: how mobile do we want to be
> 
> 
> >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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>