RE: multi6-functional-dec and re-homing

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

> The charter does need to be clarified... that's one reason we've
> asked for a BOF. You're correct of course, the state machine doesn't
> have to define the triggers, but it certainly defines the points at
> which they will be applied.

Could I suggest a change to the current charter:

From:

	MAY 05    First draft of architectural and protocol document
	MAY 05    First draft on cryptographic locators, if required
	MAY 05    First draft on state managment

To:

	MAY 05    First draft of architectural and protocol document
	MAY 05    First draft on cryptographic locators, if required
	MAY 05    First draft on failure & rehoming event description

This is, of course, not considering the discussion we have had about the
potential need for a seperate architecture draft.

Anyhow, State management to me, means the internal protocol state, and
message processing rules, etc.  For example, I think 
draft-arkko-multi6dt-failure-detection-00.txt might cover some of what
I'm thinking about. I also wonder if any of the work in DNA could
also be referenced here.  I'm definately interested in contributing
on this topic.

John