[nemo] Recharter items: multihoming - HAHA ?

[Thierry Ernst <[e-mail]>]

I missed this mail.  Comments inline.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:37:26 +0200
Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thierry Ernst wrote:
> > 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)
> 
> I personally am not willing to work on HAHA types of protocols, not at
> this time, for reasons of reachartering and work efficiency.
> 
> > 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
> 
> Yes, best starting discuss now; but we've already said that.  Why
> don't we start with authors giving their oppinion about what their
> intentions are with respect to which WG?  Or some technical advantage
> of HAHA for NEMO?
> 
> > (in the NEMO WG or MONAMI6 or both depending on the progress of the 
> > discussion).
> 
> It would be nice if we could avoid same topic presented in several
> meetings.  And it's already been presented here.
> 
> >>> 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.
> 
> IMHO - not in NEMO, not now in NEMO.
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> I said _if_ it still appears...
> 
> >>> => 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)
> 
> Right.
> 
> Until Charter discussion starts, do you want me to send message to
> Monami6 about HAHA?

Well, I don't know. I would say any list is fine, but probably NEMO is
better to start with so that we could come up with a conclusion on this
point in the NEMO WG first. Let me point out the HAHA is documented as
issue 4.4
http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-04.html#sec:problem.hasync
in draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-04.txt


> If I start reviewing the HAHA documents posting on Monami6 do you
> think I raise any chance that other people will review documents I'm
> currently interested in (FMIP, RO, v4 traversal and v4 in general)?

I'm not sure what you mean, here. Particularly, what FMIP has to do
with NEMO ?

Thierry