RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel aMIP6/NEMO WGs document

"Alpesh" <alpesh@cisco.com> Fri, 01 April 2005 17:46 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20411 for <mip6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:46:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DHQLR-0004BO-If for mip6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:54:09 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHQ8h-0002ep-S0; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:40:59 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHQ8g-0002eh-6g; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:40:58 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20084; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:40:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DHQG3-00042V-2c; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:48:35 -0500
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Apr 2005 09:40:48 -0800
Received: from alpeshw2k03 (dhcp-128-107-178-187.cisco.com [128.107.178.187]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j31HekgS014055; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:40:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200504011740.j31HekgS014055@sj-core-3.cisco.com>
From: Alpesh <alpesh@cisco.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com, mip6@ietf.org, nemo@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel aMIP6/NEMO WGs document
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:40:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
In-Reply-To: <456943D540CFC14A8D7138E64843F8535BAD50@daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com>
Thread-Index: AcU2v5I6v6wC3vU1ROuQO8Y2kW4a4QADu+tQAATIhLA=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: mip6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: mip6.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mip6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: mip6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mip6-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Raj:

If you are seeking a re-vote on this:

1. Agree - vote YES 
2. NO to starting with a presumed base. Looking at the discussion and
position being taken, I would prefer to start with a clean slate as a
base. Definitely, this implies that all inputs should be weighed in
judiciously.

-a

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mip6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mip6-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:41 AM
> To: mip6@ietf.org; nemo@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID 
> draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel aMIP6/NEMO WGs document
> 
> 
> A couple of clarifications regarding the consensus call:
> 
> 1. The intention is to address the following scenario:
> "MIPv6 and NEMO capable Mobile hosts/routers attaching to an 
> IPv4 access network need the capability to create a tunnel 
> and be connected to their MIP6 home agents."
> This is the scenario that is most applicable for MIP6 deployment.
> There are plenty of other scenarios as well. But they are 
> much more of academic interest at this time and hence not 
> really in the scope of this discussion. So I would suggst 
> that we do not go off on a tangent discussing all these other 
> scenarios.
> 
> Do you agree/disagree that the above scenario is the one that 
> needs to be solved ASAP?
> (Note: It does not imply that other scenarios are irrelevant. 
> It simply means that this is the scenario worth working on 
> and has the most significant priority or value for MIP6 deployment.)
> 
> 2. ID:  draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel can be used as the 
> baseline. It does not imply that we are ruling out 
> draft-soliman-v4v6-mipv6 or any other. The IDs can be 
> combined w.r.t the parts that address this scenario.
> Additionally once it is a WG document, what goes into the ID 
> is decided by the WG. So lets not get into arguments of what 
> or whose draft is the one that should be made the WG document.
> 
> -Basavaraj
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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