Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [mobile-ip] Piggybacking - DT recommendation]

From: "Glenn Morrow"<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:29:27 -0600

Actually there is something new - some proposed decisions of the other DTs.
Apparently some have found that this proposed decison is somehow being use
to say we can't do piggybacking.

I suggest that people may not understand exactly what this reasoning is and
that the persons who believe in this excuse not to do piggybacking detail,
with a precise and hopefully concise example, the exact scenario they are
thinking of. They need to answer the question of "why do you need a BSA to
use piggybacking?".

I have also seen euphemisms such as "this makes me sick", etc.. referenced
by IPv6 WG members to whom it is well known that they do not see value in
MIP anyway much less RO'd MIP. While this could also be seen as constructive
criticism, I believe or rather hope, that the persons on this mail list do
see value in it and the "sick" reference refers to the persons inability to
see value in MIP itself, let alone the piggybacking and Route Optimization.
The fact that the security PDU portions of a binding are no longer
associated with IPSEC, allows piggybacking to work and makes the technical
portion of the arguments against piggybacking false.

So it seems to me that there is no true technical excuse for not allowing
piggybacking and I can only infer logically that some deal making has been
done in order to progress the standard on some sort of deadline self-imposed
by some conflicting external SDOs. This prompted my initial criticism in
that I wanted to remind people that this is the IETF and we are supposed to
deal with the IP problem space - not the least common denominator link
layer.

I hope you see this as constructive and not a bantor.

Thanks,

Glenn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:50 AM
> To: Charles E. Perkins
> Cc: Erik Nordmark; [email-masked]; Morrow, Glenn
> [RICH2:C330:EXCH]
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [mobile-ip] Piggybacking - DT recommendation]
> 
> 
> 
> > I have tried to be very precise and technical in my discussion about
> > piggybacking.  I have set out quite a few technical points (and
> > logical points) that I had hoped would enable further discussion
> > on the matter.  Maybe you are over-generalizing, but if you truly
> > feel that my discussion was all heat and no light, then I have to
> > object, and I very much want to ask you to take another look.
> 
> Nobody has brought up any new points (well, except perhaps 
> Kempf's point
> about i-mode using something akin to piggybacking but I don't know
> if that is a link-layer type thing or an e2e thing) this time around.
> 
> Thus there is no more light shining on the issue than there was
> after the last round of discussions.
> 
>   Erik
> 
> 
>

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:15:47 +0100 (CET)

> I hope you see this as constructive and not a bantor.

Glenn,
was the above sentence a question to me and Charlie (the "to" list) or
to all of the WG?

I don't see the constructive propopsal you are making for how to move forward.
Could you clarify what it is?

  Erik