[nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

on 2005-04-01 5:40 pm [e-mail] said the following:
> A couple of clarifications regarding the consensus call:
> 
> 1. The intention is to address the following scenario:
> "MIPv6 and NEMO capable Mobile hosts/routers attaching to an IPv4
> access network need the capability to create a tunnel and be connected
> to their MIP6 home agents."
> This is the scenario that is most applicable for MIP6 deployment.
> There are plenty of other scenarios as well. But they are much more
> of academic interest at this time and hence not really in the scope
> of this discussion. So I would suggst that we do not go off on a tangent
> discussing all these other scenarios.
> 
> Do you agree/disagree that the above scenario is the one that needs
> to be solved ASAP?
> (Note: It does not imply that other scenarios are irrelevant. It simply
> means that this is the scenario worth working on and has the most 
> significant priority or value for MIP6 deployment.)


1. - I agree on what you specify above, but also think this is so wide,
or general in nature if you wish, that it doesn't work as a problem
statement.  

> 2. ID:  draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel can be used as the baseline. It
> does not imply that we are ruling out draft-soliman-v4v6-mipv6 or any
> other. The IDs can be combined w.r.t the parts that address this scenario.
> Additionally once it is a WG document, what goes into the ID is decided
> by the WG. So lets not get into arguments of what or whose draft is the
> one that should be made the WG document.

2. - I think it's premature to pick a particular document as baseline.
I don't see an agreement on a sufficiently detailed problem statement
currently, so how can we sensibly pick a particular solution?


	Henrik