Re: Last Call: IP Mobility Support to Proposed Standard

[Charlie Perkins <[e-mail]>]

> I oppose the advancement of these protocols to Proposed Standard, on
> both technical and process issues.
> 
> This missive covers a few of the technical issues for
> 
>>   1. IP Mobility Support
>>  	<draft-ietf-mobileip-protocol-15.txt>

  [text deleted]

All of Bill's issues should be brought up on the mobile-IP
mailing list.  I'll answer them there.

> CONCLUSION:
> 
> This document is technically unable to advance to Proposed Standard.
> 
> It does not reflect the editorial care and technical accuracy given to
> the original.

I think that interested participants should follow the
mobile-IP mailing list for technical details, and that
Bill should have raised his issues there months ago.

But, since Bill has taken this opportunity to slur the efforts
of so many people over the past 14-15 months, I insist on
pointing out that the document is technically accurate, has
received more editorial care than I can possibly describe,
and does not suffer from flaws such as Bill attempts to
describe.  I also find it disappointing, non-constructive,
and generally rude that Bill trashes the technical competence
and hard work of the participants within the Mobile-IP
Working Group.

> [e-mail]
>     Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
> [e-mail]
>     Key fingerprint =  2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3  59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2