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

[Thierry Ernst <[e-mail]>]

> > 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. Wouldn't it make 
> sense to have that page updated with the latest information?

Sure, and I've sent the updated information to [e-mail]
yesterday, as this was the deadline for doing so. As you now, we cannot
update directly the information availabla on the ietf.org and we cannot
decently bother [e-mail] with any delta in the agenda/ BOF
description. So, I consider the page http://www.nautilus6.org/ietf as
the master page where the most complete, accurate and up-to-date
information is. Of course, people not on the mailing list may not find
this out very quickly, but I've kept monami6 ML members informed. If
this way is going against the recommended way, we can discuss on the
wgchairs ML.

> > 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.

Very good. I may have understood things differently, but - from an
long-term Internet deployment point of view - I'm very much relieved you
say so.

However, this is not directly linked with the present discussion which
is about the relevance of draft-bagnulo-shim6-mip-00 with respect to the
objectives of the monami6 BOF.

> > If things have changed since April, then I'm sorry I didn't
> > see the changes in the objectives. If on the other hand the
> > objectives have not changed, I would like to understand the approach
> > you are considering. If the idea is to include the exploration of
> > the shim as a WG item into the prospective Monami6 WG, then I would
> > be willing to support this once the charter is properly worded in
> > such as way. To the condition it doesn't break the other objectives
> > of Monami6.
> 
> I think that Monami6 should look at both multiple CoAs and multiple
> HoAs and understand the interrelationships between MIP/Nemo and shim6.

I definetely agree on this and it is the intention behind the wording of
the proposed charter:

  "- Develop Standard Track specifications for the mobility-specific
   issues that work both for mobile hosts operating Mobile IPv6 and
   mobile routers operating NEMO Basic Support and their variant
   (FMIPv6, HMIPv6, etc)"

  "- Seek for help or push the other WGs to standardize solutions not
   specific to mobility,"

These two objectives are related to the issues detailed in
draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement.


> > 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.
> 
> It's hard to be synchronized when the BoF description at www.ietf.org
> is not up to date. Makes me wonder why we have that BoF description.

So my earlier comment on this.

> > 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.
> 
> Hmm - I thought the purpose of a BoF is to understand the scope and 
> interrelationships with work going on elsewhere (other WGs, other
> SDOs) and given this the discussion of the interaction of shim6 and
> mip6 seems to fit the area that the BoF is trying to address.

As I wrote, I'm not opposed to discuss such topic in monami6, but we
still have to figure out how it best match the purpose of the BOF. I
think it's now a general assumption amongt the people involved in the
BOF set up that discussing interaction between MIP6 nd SHIM6 comes a bit
earlier as we must first focus on the WG set up, and then on the actual
work. 

If I'm wrong, I will let Nicolas, ChanWah and Ryuji answer this.

Thierry




_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6