RE: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT Solution VsAsolutionbased on MIP6

["Narayanan, Vidya" <[e-mail]>]

To add to what Vijay has said here, it appears that the onus is being
placed on the PMIP proponents to explain why that is preferable over the
NETLMM DT solution. This is just plain wrong - it should be the other
way around, given that one PMIPv6 solution and one other MH-based
solution was already "input" to the DT. 

Vidya 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 2:28 PM
> To: Henrik Levkowetz
> Cc: Narayanan, Vidya; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT 
> Solution VsAsolutionbased on MIP6
> 
> Henrik,
> 
> IMO, Vidya's question is perfectly valid.
> 
> when a design team is formed to work on a solution for a 
> particular problem and if there are multiple solutions to the 
> problem, one of the first things the design team is supposed 
> to do is to evaluate if any of the existing solutions 
> suffices. if none of the solutions satisfy the basic 
> requirements, then the design team should of course work on a 
> new solution from scratch.
> 
> sure, it is preferable to always do only "engineering", but 
> you do have to deal with the "other" questions sometimes.
> 
> note that the design team solution is after all
> *just* another solution.
> 
> Vijay
> 
> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> > Hi Vidya,
> > 
> > on 2006-10-27 20:54 Narayanan, Vidya said the following:
> >> I fully agree with Hesham here. I think the NETLMM DT 
> really needs to 
> >> provide an explanation of why a PMIP-like solution was not 
> chosen as 
> >> the network-mobility protocol. The answer that "the DT 
> deliberated it 
> >> and decided against it" is unacceptable. Clearly, the 
> folks outside 
> >> the DT have no visibility to this. And, having talked to 
> folks from 
> >> the DT, I'm still not clear on the reasons.
> >>
> >> I think this is the responsibility of the DT to prove to 
> the rest of 
> >> the community why the solution chosen best satisfies the 
> requirement 
> >> for network-based mobility.
> > 
> > No.  You're right about looking at what best satisfies the 
> > requirements, but not on it being up to the design team to 
> "prove" the 
> > proposed solution against arbitrary other solutions.  On 
> the contrary, 
> > if any "proving" should be done, it should be up to all people 
> > interested in the work to hold up all the potential 
> proposed solutions 
> > against the *requirements agreed on*; or if needed, go back 
> and revise 
> > the requirements, establish consensus for the revised 
> requirements, and then compare the solutions against those.
> > 
> > In the first paragrap above, you seem to be arguing as if this is a 
> > trial, rather than engineering.
> > 
> > It seems to me that nobody has had complaints about the proposed 
> > solution not fulfilling the requirements, or about the requirements 
> > being incomplete or wrong; the discussion up to now has 
> sounded more 
> > like "you didn't pick my favourite solution, so I'm going 
> to give you a hard time about it".
> > 
> > So if the DT 'defends' itself against one charge ("You 
> didn't propose
> > PMIPv6!") the next will maybe be "You didn't propose GTP", 
> followed by 
> > "You didn't propose PMIPv4, which is much more proven than PMIPv6", 
> > followed by "You didn't propose OSPF, which was used for LMM over 4 
> > years ago, and proven to work", and so on...
> > 
> > And if we would accept this mode of working, any future 
> proposal would 
> > be open to the same kind of attack.  That wouldn't be 
> engineering, either.
> > 
> > This isn't the way to argue, and it isn't a way that leads forward.
> > 
> > What's really relevant to the Internet Engineering Task 
> Force is what 
> > the requirements are, and how well the proposed solution(s) 
> fulfil the 
> > requirements.  That's engineering.
> > 
> > Can we get back to doing engineering, please?
> > 
> > 
> > 	Henrik
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > netlmm mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm