Re: [Monami6] MCoA draft

[marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>]

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


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.

>>
>>
>> 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)

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