Re: proposed text for charter

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Well, I disagree. This may amount to asking for the
impossible. We can properly require a shim6 implementation to
co-exist with mobility implementations, but we cannot require it
to operate simultaneously with them; that may turn out to be
simply impossible. As I wrote a few days ago, it may be necessary
to instruct shim6 to switch itelf off when some other functions
are switched on.

   Brian

Jari Arkko wrote:
> Ok for me too. --Jari
>
> Bound, Jim wrote:
>
> > I agree ....
> > /jim
> >  
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-shim6@psg.com [mailto:owner-shim6@psg.com] On Behalf Of 
> > > Thierry Ernst
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 11:01 PM
> > > To: shim6
> > > Subject: Re: proposed text for charter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > About the following item in the charter:
> > > o  The solution must not cause problems for mobility. That is, it
> > >    should be possible to continue using Mobile IPv6 even when using
> > >    shim6 simultaneously. However, any optimizations or advanced
> > >    configurations are out of scope for shim6.
> > >
> > > I would suggest to write "should be possile to continue using mobility
> > > support protocols such as Mobile IPv6 land NEMO Basic Support"
> > >
> > > An additional item such as the following one would be useful:
> > >
> > > - The WG will ensure that various mechanisms defined within other IETF
> > > WGs will continue to work when using shmi6 simultaneously.  To achieve
> > > this, the Shim6 WG will interact with other WGs when needed, and may
> > > place requirements on the protocols developed by those WGs.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thierry.
> > >
> > >
> > >   
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >