Subject: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] HAHA slot at both MIP6 and NEMO?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:20:07 -0800

> Maybe thought and discussion should have been given to splitting the
> draft in two.  Do a first simple HAHA problem with a simple 
> mobile host
> solution and only then do it for NEMO.  But coming up with 
> all the stuff
> in one doc and forcing it down the throats of both WG's without any
> prior public discussion is really, errr, how to say, a bit annoying,
> right?

huh?? it is an individual submission. the authors are free to put what
they want in the spec. 

a WG draft is different. the WG decides what goes into it.

Vijay

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 23:39:40 +0100

[email-masked] wrote:
>> Maybe thought and discussion should have been given to splitting 
>> the draft in two.  Do a first simple HAHA problem with a simple 
>> mobile host solution and only then do it for NEMO.  But coming up 
>> with all the stuff in one doc and forcing it down the throats of 
>> both WG's without any prior public discussion is really, errr, how 
>> to say, a bit annoying, right?
> 
> huh?? it is an individual submission. the authors are free to put 
> what they want in the spec.

Vijay, I suppose you got my point.

This is about many other individual submissions being rejected slots (or
imposed very tight time constraints) on grounds of non-relation to
Charters, while this particularly negatively reviewed individual
submission generously got 2 slots.

This can be so only because of its apparent appeal of a nice technique
promissing many things to many problems, and its apparent novelty.
There is text in the draft that relates it to MIP6 for hosts, to NEMO
MR's, might look as a solution for HA reliability, might look as help
for RO too.

Maybe presenting it to MIPSHOP would be a good idea too, they also deal
with an HA closer to MN (the MAP).

> a WG draft is different. the WG decides what goes into it.

Absolutely, and it would have been even better if one of that WG's
member oppinion were taken into account when preparing the NEMO agenda
(the only oppinion apart an author's oppinion).  This reads: the draft
HAHA was published, member reacted negatively, author positively, and
so the draft popped up in the agenda :-)

But, finally, I think this goes above my humble comprehension of facts,
so I'll sit, watch and see.  So I'm eager to see the slides and the minutes.

Alex
GBU

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 23:39:40 +0100

Alex
GBU