RE: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on makingIDdraft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document

"Soliman, Hesham" <H.Soliman@flarion.com> Sat, 02 April 2005 08:37 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 DAA05342 for <mip6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Apr 2005 03:37:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DHeFl-0003Rt-0p for mip6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:45:13 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHe2b-0002BG-1a; Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:31:37 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHe2F-0002Ah-N1; Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:31:15 -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 DAA04889; Sat, 2 Apr 2005 03:31:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.flarion.com ([63.103.94.23] helo=ftmailgfi1.flariontech.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DHe9h-00030B-Ij; Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:39:00 -0500
Received: from ftmailserver.flariontech.com ([10.10.1.140]) by ftmailgfi1.flariontech.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sat, 2 Apr 2005 03:31:03 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on makingIDdraft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:31:03 -0500
Message-ID: <A11736FE943F1A408F8BBB1B9F5FE8AD01CBC730@ftmailserver.flariontech.com>
Thread-Topic: [Mip6] Consensus call on making IDdraft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnelaMIP6/NEMO WGs document
Thread-Index: AcU2v5I6v6wC3vU1ROuQO8Y2kW4a4QADu+tQAAuhshAAGDKocA==
From: "Soliman, Hesham" <H.Soliman@flarion.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com, mip6@ietf.org, nemo@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2005 08:31:03.0551 (UTC) FILETIME=[4EA050F0:01C5375E]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: 31247fb3be228bb596db9127becad0bc
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Raj, 

I misunderstood your question, so I take back the yes below
about the scenario. I don't see how or why you picked this 
scenario in the first place. I do think we need a list of 
priorities for scenarios to consider but we need 
to do that in the context of draft-larsson which is the only
doc that lists all scenarios. Once we have that discussion
we can pick scenarios to consider for solutions.

Hesham

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: nemo-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nemo-bounces@ietf.org]On 
 > Behalf Of
 > Soliman, Hesham
 > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 3:58 PM
 > To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; mip6@ietf.org; nemo@ietf.org
 > Subject: RE: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on
 > makingIDdraft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document
 > 
 > 
 > 
 >  > Do you agree/disagree that the above scenario is the one 
 > that needs
 >  > to be solved ASAP?
 > 
 > => I agree.
 > 
 >  > (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. 
 > 
 > => I don't see how it doesn't imply that. I think we should agree
 > on the scenario first, without associating it with either 
 > draft-wakikawa
 > or draft-soliman. Once we agreed, we can discuss how to solve the 
 > problem. I disagree with making draft-wakikawa a baseline. 
 > 
 > Hesham
 > 
 > 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
 >  > 
 >  > 
 > 
 > ===========================================================
 > This email may contain confidential and privileged material 
 > for the sole use
 >  of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by 
 > others is strictly
 >  prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please 
 > contact the sender
 >  and delete all copies.
 > ===========================================================
 > 
 > 
 > 

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