Re: [Monami6] MCoA draft

[Ryuji Wakikawa <[e-mail]>]

Hi Marcelo

On 2006/04/12, at 17:30, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I must say that i fully agree with Chan-Wah here...
>
> El 12/04/2006, a las 9:05, Nicolas Montavont escribió:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Apr 12, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Chan-Wah Ng wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 17:11 +0200, Nicolas Montavont wrote:
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> According to the discussion at Vancounver and Dallas, we think  
>>>> that we
>>>> reached a rough consensus to accept
>>>
>>> Really?  Unless you call a ratio of less than 3 (for) : 1  
>>> (against) a
>>> "rough consensus" (which was what I counted in Dallas).
>>
>> Most of people were for the adoption of the document as a WG  
>> document, including AD and chair of other WG.
>>
>> The few people who were against failed to show major concerns  
>> (some issues are still unresolved of course, but this can be dealt  
>> while the document is a WG document.
>>
>
> that is not what i recall from the meeting.
>
> imho there was not clear rough consensus in the dallas meeting
>
> however, the decision must be taken on the list i guess
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Multiple Care-of addresses registration
>>>> draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-05
>>>>
>>>> as a WG document for the 3rd deliverable:
>>>>
>>>>    - A protocol extension to Mobile IPv6 (RFC 3775) and NEMO Basic
>>>> Support (RFC 3963) to support the registration of multiple Care-of
>>>> Addresses at a given Home Agent address [Standard Track].
>>>>
>>>> The document has been improved between the 2 IETF meetings in a  
>>>> way that
>>>> we think meets the request of the WG members as expressed at  
>>>> Vancouver.
>>>
>>> Again, as mentioned in ML: I see at least two unresolved issues:
>>>
>>> - Bulk Registrations.
>>> - Simultaneously at home and foreign.
>>
>> Sure, but we didn't say that the document is ready for the IESG.
>>
>
> but there was a consensus call in the ml sent by Thierry and people  
> brought up those issues as problems in order to accept this  draft  
> as wg item (not in order to sent it to the IESG).
>
> this, as i understand it, means that there is no consensus to  
> accept this document as a wg item until there is not a clear  
> agreement in these issues

I give answer to most of issues. The left one is bulk registration to  
CN which we still don't know if it's necessary or not.
THere is no consensus yet to support this in WG. Even if we really  
need, we can continue to discuss this in separate document.

>
> in particular, i am concerned about the bulk registration issue.  
> imho this is a major issue, because it is not obvious to me that  
> the current draft can be extended to support bulk registration  
> cleanly. I would like to understand if we think that bulk  
> registration is needed, and if it is, how can be fitted into the  
> mcoa draft neatly, without being caught in a draft that doesn't  
> naturally includes such feature. That is why i think more analysis  
> is needed in this point.

At least, the current spec can support Home bulk registration, though  
I have to fix some minor issues.
About CN bulk registration, I want to know whether it's really need  
at this point.
At the meeting, there are comments saying bulk registration is enough  
only for home registration.

>>> Having said all that, I am not against moving the draft to WG  
>>> draft.  In
>>> fact, changing it to WG draft would force us to maintain an issue  
>>> list,
>>> then we will truly know how many issues there are.
>>
>> That's exactly our point, we believe that it is the best way to  
>> work on the document.
>>
>
> probably, but the point is that there is no consensus to work on  
> this document yet since there is no consensus to accept it as a wg  
> item (yet)

I believe most of issues can be solved with modifications to MCoA.
Your further comments are really appreciated to complete MCoA.

thanks
ryuji

> regards, marcelo
>
>
>> Nicolas
>>
>>> I just wanted to
>>> keep the fact rights.
>>>
>>> /rgds
>>> /cwng
>>>
>>>> The document will therefore be forwarded to the IETF secretariat.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, do not hesitate to (continue to) comment on the  
>>>> draft.
>>>>
>>>> Nicolas & Thierry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Monami6 mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Monami6 mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Monami6 mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monami6 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>


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