Re: proposed text for charter

[Thierry Ernst <ernst@sfc.wide.ad.jp>]

> Catching up on some back mail, I'd like to comment that IMO, the
> charter text:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> is sufficient.
I don't think so.
 
> Thierry said:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I disagree with this addtion, as it is not clear to me how shim6 would
> interact with these solutions, or what deployment models folks have in
> their mind.  I  agree with Erik's general scetch of shim6 - mip6
> interaction, but I am not sure if everyone has come to agreement.  I
> could think of many possible interactions -  running MIPv6 over SHIM6,
> for example.  What would it mean to run shim6 with fmip or hmip?  With
> respect to NEMO, are the multiple prefixes advertised over the NEMO
> link or would there be both a nemo-aware interface active and another
> non-NEMO interface.  All of these questions are secondary in nature,
> and I think we should actually get some of the basic shim6 work done
> before opening these boxes.

The best way for the (potential) Shim6 WG is to add such an item in the
charter and have some interested people doing the analysis. These
people may or may not consider scenarios etc, but at least we will be
aware of what interacting Shim6 and MIP6 means. Note this doesn't mean
that Shim6 would work on mobility (if it is understood this way then I
didn't express myself correctly). I think Jim and Erik caught what I'm
trying to say.


Thierry.