Re: HIP BOF Review

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

tangential:

--On 10. november 2003 12:37 -0800 James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> 
wrote:

> and
> there were some indications in the proposed charter that, deep down, the
> HIP guys really think it should be standards track (like the inclusion of
> a MIB).

if a MIB makes sense and is useful on its own, why should the inclusion of 
a MIB be indication that it wants to be standards track?
if a MIB doesn't make sense and is useful, why on Earth are we pushing for 
protocols to have MIBs?

ie I certainly hope that the reason is that there's someone in the design 
team who thinks that MIBs are useful for HIP than them wanting standards 
track status.

                     Harald