At 12:51 AM 13/10/2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 12-okt-2005, at 16:35, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:My question is: do you want that those additional mechanisms are included in the base shim spec (not the bit that signals that the shim header is needed or not, the actual mechanisms) or it is good enough for you that those can be specified in a different document?I prefer to have the mechanisms required to be able to safely enable suppression of the shim header in a different document.
And Erik responded:
Right. I haven't thought much about the issues around locator updating because I was kind of assuming this wouldn't happen in the presense of HBA.
> But it can with CGA. [...] > It seems to me that we can't make sure the we got the handling of > the "bit" correct until we know how the sender and receiver will > use this capability.Thanks for this. One approach for the next steps for a "different document" is to generate a draft that describes this in detail, and, of course, submit it to the WG for potential adoption as a WG document.
Is this what we can anticipate? If so, when would you anticipate such a document being submitted to the ietf drafts repository? Is it conditional on locator set updating being specified, as referred to by Erik?
regards,
Geoff