Re: how mobile do we want to be

[Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>]

Hi Dave,

At 9:14 PM -0800 3/19/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
> the draft charter is primarily notable for its lack of explanation. 
> it does not explain what the problem is, other than to reference 
> "site multihoming" and does not explain the solution path, other 
> than to say that it will be whatever was under discussion earlier 
> and elsewhere.
>
> please imagine being new to the topic and trying to read the 
> charter, to understand what the actual problem is and what the 
> benefits of the solution will be.  you will find none of this 
> discussed in the draft charter.

This work is a continuation of multiple years of work in the multi6 
WG, and I don't think that it is possible (or even makes sense to 
try) to boil that knowledge and experience down into a few charter 
paragraphs.

The proposed charter states that it is a continuation of the multi6 
work and cites 9 documents that a person new to this topic should 
read to understand the context of the discussion, including:  a 
multihoming goals document, a threat analysis, an architectural 
framework and the latest design team output regarding the solution 
space.  In my personal opinion, this is much more detailed 
information that we usually have when we start a WG, and would do 
more to help a new person come up-to-speed in this area than the 
typical IETF WG charter.

I do have one concern about this part of the charter -- it cites 
I-Ds, and I am not sure that all of those I-Ds will eventually be 
published as RFCs in their current form.  Kurtis, Geoff and Brian -- 
which of the I-Ds cited in the charter have been submitted to the 
IESG for publication?  What should we do with the others?  Are they 
expected to be updated over time, or will their mention here limit 
the useful lifetime of this charter to <6 months?

Margaret