Subject: Re: [Mip6] Typo in draft-ietf-mip6-mipext-advapi-03.txt

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 11:30:07 +0300 (EEST)

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Samita Chakrabarti wrote:
>> Btw, now that the NEMO RFC is out, have you considered adding the NEMO
>> definitions to the draft?
>>
>
> The question was brought up before. Currently mip6api draft is in the AD review.
> It is up to the Chairs and ADs to decide whether NEMO API should be bound
> with this document or they should be published separately.

I happened to get across this while perusing the issue tracker.

IMHO, it would seem to make sense to add the NEMO basic support APIs 
here. As it is NEMO is already an RFC, and as it seems that the 
updates would be fairly trivial.

However, the problem here is whether the proposed NEMO APIs have been 
sufficiently reviewed by NEMO WG.  If NEMO WG chairs would say that 
there is rough consensus for these and these inclusions, this would be 
an "OK" signal for us.

What we want to avoid is adding NEMO APIs here if such would later be 
called out to not have been sufficiently reviewed at NEMO WG or 
lacking consensus there.

Obviously, all this still requires some form of approval of the AD, 
but as the document is still at AD review, i.e., hasn't been passed to 
the IESG as a whole yet, I don't think it is procedurally too late to 
kill two birds with one stone.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:26:13 +0900

Hello Pekka

NEMO added only a mobility header option and flags for BU, BA, etc.
Therefore, modifications for NEMO can be very small.

I sent examples of NEMO APIs to Samita a while ago.
We did implement and use the NEMO APIs in KAME NEMO implementation.
It works fine. 

regards,
ryuji

At Sat, 2 Apr 2005 11:30:07 +0300 (EEST),

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 08:13:07 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

> We did implement and use the NEMO APIs in KAME NEMO implementation.

Sorry -- this was not the point I was trying to make.  I was taking a 
procedural approach to this..

It does not matter all that much what you (as an individual) decide to 
do, or what you (as an individual) choose to implement.  Of course, 
it's nice to see there's interest and implementation of those, though. 
(Nothing against you of course personally :)

The critical thing is whether NEMO WG has reached the rough consensus 
that those modifications you (as an individual) proposed are good, and 
NEMO WG is fine with them.

For that, I guess NEMO WG chairs would need to put on a hat and take 
the sense of the "room", solicit review, etc.

That doesn't need to take long, but if we are going to add anything 
about NEMO in the spec, our AD will want us to be double-careful that 
those modifications reflect the consensus of the NEMO WG.

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 14:21:02 +0900

Hi Pekka

> procedural approach to this..

No pb. and I did not try to push anything here:-)

> (Nothing against you of course personally :)

what i wanted to say is that we implemented both NEMO and MIP6 API.
MIP6 API is already defined and ready for RFC, but we are also waiting 
for NEMO API.

> NEMO WG is fine with them.

I don't think there was consensus in NEMO WG. I haven't seen discussion 
on this.
maybe better to post your initial mail to NEMO ML.

> the sense of the "room", solicit review, etc.

agree.

> those modifications reflect the consensus of the NEMO WG.

ok.

regards,
ryuji