[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: how mobile do we want to be


On 18 mar 2005, at 07.24, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Thierry Ernst wrote: 
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.

I persist in believing that will be too late. And of course if the charter is approved with the exclusion of mobility as a legitimate concern, anyone who cares about the implications of the edge in motion will be excluded from voicing these concerns.


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.


We didn't exclude the discussion. I'm just stating it as my
opinion that the draft charter is correct on this point, and that
this was already clear in the multi6 discussions.

Yes, that is because Mobility of any sort was out of scope in Multi6, and that is what I am hoping can be avoided in the chartering of this group.

This is a new effort, and while the recommendations of Multi6 should certainly be considered strongly, I don't see how they can be the _only_ determinant on this charter.

I think the input from the BoF of several people and the support for some sort of inclusion of mobility from the participants of this list should force consideration of our concerns. I do not see that there is consensus for excluding these considerations, not that consensus, even rough consensus, is necessarily the primary determinant in chartering decisions.

There seems to be a fundamental disagreement between those of us who believe the topics are intricately related and thus who argue they are not. I don't think this can be resolved in a shouting match, claims of having learned nothing new or accusations of IETF end runs but needs to be dealt with by an engineering analysis by a design team. And I think this design team should be part of the chartered work of shim6, should be permitted to speak on their issues in the WG and should have the analysis listed among the WG's milestones.

I do NOT think the work of developing an architecture should wait for the results of this study, but believe they should be parallel efforts so that the architecture can be looked at with the results of the analysis before proceeding on to protocol development.

a.