Re: [Monami6] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-bagnulo-shim6-mip-00.txt

Thierry Ernst wrote:

>>The last bullet isn't specified in the monami6 BoF text, so I find it 
>>odd that you list it as a top objective above.
> 
> 
> Erik, I'm not sure which text you are refering to, the most up to date
> in on http://www.nautilus6.org/ietf . Our objective is to set up a new
> WG since the BOF has been announced. I cc Margaret just to be sure that
> this is a common understanding from our corresponding AD. 

I was referring to the text at http://www.ietf.org
But I've since read the above web page in detail.

> What I meant to say is that the signal I received by the Shim6 WG was
> clear about saying that the mobility issues wouldn't be dealt by the
> Shim6 WG. 

Again you are operating in a black and white mode.
There was a question whether solving mobility issues was to be a
requirement in the shim6 charter. The answer from the BoF/WG was "no".

But the fact that it isn't a requirement doesn't mean that it will not
be dealt with; it just doesn't guarantee (from a charter perspective)
that it will be done.

Many people active in shim6 are interested in finding the commonality
between multihoming and mobility, even though it isn't required in the
charter.

But I think the above is beside the point of the goals of the BoF and 
whether there is a WG with a reasonable charter lurking in the monami6 
space.

> I'm not rejecting anything, I think we are not synchronized on the
> purpose of the BOF. As chair, I just need to make sure that we can reach
> the objectives of the BOF as it is currently expressed and agreed
> between the people involved in the set up.

Your web page lists are goals for the BoF several items. Among them
> # to discuss which issues should be addressed by a Monami6 WG, which ones should be addressed by other WGs, and which ones should possibly be investigated in a IRTF WG.
> # to discuss the scope of the prospective WG.

To me this seems like you'd want the BoF to look at all the issues that 
are at the intersection point of mobility and multihoming. Discussing if 
which of the issues should be addresses where would seem to require at 
least having a list of all the issues.

And it was this text that led me and Marcelo to offer the draft as input 
to discussion in the BoF.

So I don't understand why the draft is not germane to the goals of the 
BoF? Have the organizers of the BoF already decided that the BoF/WG 
could only look at the multiple CoA case (and not worry about multiple 
HoAs for instance)

BoFs that work well IMHO try to understand the domain into which the 
proposed work will fit, so it would seem to be that a discussion around 
draft-bagnulo-shim6-mip-00.txt would be helpful to the BoF finding the 
proper scope (whatever that might turn out to be).

> So, unless we still disagree on the purpose of the BOF as it is
> expressed in http://www.nautilus6.org/ietf, the request to speak about
> the interaction between Shim6 and MIP6 can only be proceeded if you
> clarify what are the objective of the slot request with respect to the
> BOF description.

See above.

> Note: I'm not opposing anything, I want to ensure consistency of the
> BOF slots.

You mean I should interpret your "NO" as a "YES"? :-)

    Erik

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6