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

[[e-mail]]

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.)

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.

-Basavaraj