[Fwd: Review comments on draft-ietf-shim6-proto-03.txt]

[Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>]

Geoff has sent me many very good editorial clarifications which I've 
applied to the draft.

But there was one where I didn't quite agree that it was an editorial 
change so it makes sense to discuss it on the list.

The text and Geoff's suggested change were:

1.2  Non-Goals

   The assumption is that the problem we are trying to solve is site
   multihoming, with the ability to have the set of site locator
   prefixes change over time due to site renumbering.  Further, we
   assume that such changes to the set of locator prefixes can be
   relatively slow and managed; slow enough to allow updates to the DNS
   to propagate.  But it is not a goal to try to make communication
   survive a renumbering event (which causes all the locators of a host
   to change to a new set of locators).  This proposal does not attempt
|   to solve the, perhaps related, problem of host mobility.  However, it
|   might turn out that the shim6 protocol can be a useful component,
|   e.g., for route optimization in the context of host mobility.

replace with
-------

be applicable to host mobility, although this is an area for further study.


---

While the shim6 WG hasn't been chartered to solve the mobility problem, 
the above text in the draft states (and I think accurately so) that 
shim6 can be useful for route optimization when shim6 is coupled with 
host mobility.

Thus shim6 has some potential applicability to mobility.

Hence I think Geoff's suggestion is making a too strong statement, even 
if we do not today have consensus around how mobility+multihoming will 
evolve.

Comments?

    Erik