[Netext] Scope of proposed work

[hesham at elevatemobile.com (Hesham Soliman)]

Hi Raj, 


On 9/04/09 7:29 AM, "Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com" <Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com>
wrote:

> 
> Hello,
> 
> There is an issue in the current debate that we should put to rest.
> Netext proposes to extend PMIP6 to support multihoming, flow mobility
> and inter-technology handovers (in addition to others over which there is
> an agreement on).
> 
> It is recognized that host based Mobile IP (RFC3775) and DSMIP6 has
> these capabilities currently. I dont think there is any debate about
> that. 
> However there is an interested group of people within the IETF
> community who would like to extend PMIP6 to support these features as
> well. 

=> Ok but without a PS, without justification, nothing? I mean if that's the
case why have a BoF? Everyone keeps talking about the market needs. If this
is the only reason for having these functions then we may as well send a
business plan to Jari instead of having a BoF :). Market needs usually tell
us the problem that needs to be solved, not *how* to solve it.

> It is not uncommon in the IETF to have multiple competing protocols
> provide similar functionality. The industry will ultimately choose an
> appropriate solution depending on the needs. So I dont think we can
> just quash the idea of working on these extensions simply because we
> already have a protocol that does it.
> It is also noted that one of the primary reasons for developing PMIP6
> was to provide mobility without host involvement.

=> Yes but least for netlmm there was a PS and *some* technical arguments.
Mostly bogus IMO but at least they took place. Here everyone is singing in
concert about how to solve things and completely refusing to say why.
Actually some people explicitly said that on the list.

It's sad that this level of discussion is taking place to justify a WG.
Remember the discussions you had to manage for PANA or other WGs you
chaired? Very different. I think it's good that you're encouraging people to
discuss the technical problems, and it's good that they're agreeing, but
unfortunately it's not happening. That should tell us something...

Hesham