Re: [multimob] Charter discussion

[Hitoshi Asaeda <[e-mail]>]

Thomas,

>> And why do you think problem statement is not needed?
> 
> Because it's there:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps

Maybe it does not help making people recognize the problems this
multimob group wants to address. It just says many things. It is
difficult to understand "what is the real problem?".

Ok, then how about improving the following two requirement drafts
Behcet said today:

> Yes, specific requirements draft like:
> http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt
> http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-mobility-req-01.txt
> 
> need to be improved, the authors, please post a revised version and
> let us know.

It is good to clarify also the problems for supporting multicast
with PMIPv6 and IGMP/MLD protocols in these drafts, isn't it?

>> I wonder the same discussion will come up again and again, "why
>> multicast support for mobility should be discussed and why multicast
>> does not properly work with mobility protocol, say PMIPv6?".
>> If people already shared the problems and have the concensus of
>> multimob work, then the problem statement draft wouldn't be necessary.
>> I've thought the reason why many people always doubt multimob work is
>> that there is no good problem statement draft to answer the question.
>> 
>>> Specific requirements
>>> drafts have been around (and should be improved), but will not be
>>> needed for the initial BCP-type of activities: 
>> Why you assume "BCP" here?
> 
> Because it is written in the charter / in the list Gorry sent.

Maybe a category of problem statement and requirement draft would be
Informational?

>>> requirements here are
>>> obvious as given from the related specs in mcast and mobility.
>> If requirements were obvious, the requirements draft wouldn't be
>> needed. I've just suspected it.
> 
> ??? Unclear what you mean.

I mean both problem statement and requirement should be clarified in
either one or separate drafts (for each target protocol).

Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda