Re: [nemo] Re: multihoming topics

[Thierry Ernst <[e-mail]>]

Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >>>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?

I think I could do that ;-)
But, as a NEMO chair, I need to make sure it's a consensus of the NEMO
WG that:
1. Monami6 is the best place, according to the NEMO WG
2. The NEMO WG is not willing to work on the topic in the NEMO WG (for
some reasons, like rechartering, and above all work efficiency and
complementarity)

So, if we can discuss now on NEMO ML if we think a solution like HAHA
must be standardized, and that this should be done in Monami6, may be we
can discuss this point in Vancouver (in the NEMO WG or MONAMI6 or both
depending on the progress of the discussion).

> > 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, 
See my comment above.

> 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.

Agree it should be short, in the meeting. So, we have 1 week to drive a
WG consensus on this point on the ML.

> > => 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.

I would say it's a personal message with a NEMO chair profiled hat, but
I didn't sync with TJ, so this may not be a "NEMO chairs" view.

To answer your question, responsability of chairs is to make this
discussion happen and to drive the conclusions, possibly report the
conclusion to other chairs or IESG. But it's not the chair
responsability to decide. It's the WG's. And, for this, we need the
discussion to be happening on NEMO ML right now. (actually, we need to
discuss the entire process or rechartering NEMO, I guess TJ and me need
to initiate this debate on a separate thread)

> 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.

My personal feeling is that it''s both MIP6 and NEMO scope, and could
address some of the multihoming concerns (though I know motivations come
from a RO point of view), so Monami6 would be a good place. Just my
point of view. I would like to conclude what is the NEMO WG point of
view.

Alex, what's yours ? 

Thierry