Subject: [nemo] Re: multihoming topics
From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
To: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:30:41 +0200
List-Id: NEMO Working Group <nemo.ietf.org>

Thierry Ernst wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 
>>>Thierry, just a question.  I agree with most points in the agenda.
>>>
>>>Isn't the 4th topic dealt with in Monami6 WG?  I mean, we already
>>>had extensive discussion slots at several NEMO meetings about what
>>>are the multi-homing issues and where should they be worked on.  And
>>>then there was Monami6 BoF, and now Monami6 is created so they
>>>should logically be worked there, no?
>>>
>>
>>In the upcoming -04 [*] of draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues, I have
>>clearly recommended which issues to be worked on by which WG.  There
>>are two points of considerations for the NEMO WG.  I would definitely
>>like to use the slot in Vancouver to clear this two points.
> 
> 
> We also need to clear the other points: we cannot just say, well, this
> is a task for IPv6, or a task for DNA, or a task for monami6 and doing
> nothing. So,
> 1. do we think as a WG that the issue is important enough to be solved ?

Could a NEMO Chair just ask a Monami6 Chair to deal with HAHA within its
scope, and publicly discuss adoption within the Monami6 group?

> 2. if yes, where ?
> 3. if "where" is identified, we need to rise the discussion in the given
> WG which will decide if it's solvable in a reasonable amount of time and
> possibly add a new item.

Could you please raise the HAHA discussion on Monami6, I agree with
that.  In this way probably more slots will be available during the NEMO
meeting for other-than-HAHA discussions?  HAHA discussions and
presentations on NEMO happened twice (Washington and San Diego).  If it
still appears in the Vancouver agenda it should be relatively short I
believe.

> => but it's our responsability as the NEMO WG members to push for the
> relevant discussion to happen on the designed WGs.

Thierry, is this with the NEMO Chair hat on or as a NEMO WG member?  If
you believe that NEMO responsability is to do something then, as a Chair
you have the maximum responsibility, please do it.

If on the other hand the NEMO WG believes HAHA is local NEMO scope, then
let's just ask that prior to the meeting: there have already been two
meetings with HAHA slots.

Alex