Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnela MIP6/NEMO WGs document

I agree with Henrik. If we have multiple solution proposals, then I think it
makes sense to look at the problem more closely, see how the proposed
solutions do and don't address the problem, and try to come up with a
solution (or pick one) that best solves the problem.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <henrik@levkowetz.com>
To: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
Cc: <nemo@ietf.org>; <mip6@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID
draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnela MIP6/NEMO WGs document

> Hi,
>
> On 2005-03-30 9:33 pm Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com said the following:
> [...]
> > A number of transition scenarios have been identified in IDs:
> > 1. draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios-01
> > 2. draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-03
> > While discussion of these scenarios in the larger scope makes sense,
> > there is a need to focus on the most critical scenario that would
> > address the MIP6 host and router problem. The problem in a single
> > sentence can be stated as: "Mobile IPv6 hosts and routers (NEMO) need
> > to be able to reach its (IPv6) home agent and services when roaming in
> > and attached to an IPv4 access network."
> > It makes sense to focus on just this one scenario and solve the
> > problem immediately.
>
> Given that there already exists at least 3 solution drafts in this area:
>
>   draft-thubert-nemo-ipv4-traversal
>   draft-soliman-v4v6-mipv6
>   draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel
>
> and Sri clearly indicates that there are requirements which these
> don't cover, I think it would be good to have a clear and agreed
> upon statement of what to achieve before adopting an approach and
> draft.  So I'm not for adopting draft-wakikawa before there is an
> agreed upon problem statement.
>
> That said, I'm very much in favour of doing this work; and doing
> it by extensions to MIP6 (and MIP4) rather than trying to adapt
> any of the other approaches which would mix MIP6 with non-MIP tunnels,
> as listed in draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios-01.
>
> If the decision is to write a problem statement, I'd be willing to
> work on such a draft, and I also have a potential co-editor who have
> indicated willingness.
>
> > The ID: draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel-01 solves the problem of a MIPv6
> > mobile node or a NEMO mobile router roaming onto a IPv4 only access
> > network in a simple manner.
> > It is intended that the standardization of this solution in the IETFs
> > MIP6 and/or NEMO working groups proceed. The working group chairs have
> > reviewed and discussed this work item. It has also been presented at
> > the MIP6 and NEMO WGs at IETF62.
> >
> > The chairs would like to hear your thoughts in order to see if there
> > is consensus to make it a WG document and progress it as a standards
> > track RFC. Comments should be sent to both the NEMO and MIP6 WGs.
> >
> > If we have consensus, then the document will be pursued as a dual WG
> > item and called draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4tunnel-xx.txt
> >
> > Make I-D draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WG ID:
> > For [  ]
> > Against [  ]
> >
>
> Not currently [ X ]
>
>
> Henrik
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mip6 mailing list
> Mip6@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
>

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6