Subject: RE: [seamoby] Yet Another BOF?

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:58:17 -0600

<foot in mouth>

I am sorry I still have another 40 email to read, so if there has been some revelation since Tuesday (Phil's email) I appologize.

I have to agree with Phil (N) here, coming back after a few days to my seamoby mail folder, I don't recognize the list. Am I still on Seamoby mailing list, or this is mobile IP all of sudden?

I thought I came here because the MIP fast handoff groups couldn't agree on a draft in San Diego. So why should I sit here on seamoby list and dodge all the HMIP, FMIP, X Y ZMIP bullets. I can read that on mobile IP mailing list, which I guess I have to resubscribe or something.

I really enjoyed the context transfer design team, because from the beginning, just like Phil said, we started from  a clean slate. Everybody was set to produce a single common draft, instead of the battle field of drafts. I learned a lot from the team and we added even different solution alternatives to indicate that making a choice between alternatives as part of the problem. Why can't the mm team do the same instead of bibliography of mobile IP?

</foot in mouth>

It is sad to see the pioneers of this group (like Phil N.) so disappointed.

In respond to Pat C., I'd say I am all for the design teams, let's continue the work. The design team were never closed, anybody can join, even somebody as dumb as me, they were just more focused on seamoby issues.

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 5:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [seamoby] Yet Another BOF?

After a brief history with mobility BOFs,  I am convinced that they are of
limited use.  Perhaps an
informational RFC is a better approach (not my idea).  I am convinced that many
of us (perhaps
Gary, (Andrew, James, John, Peter, and the other OBAST disciples:-))) that
wanted to build true
all IP based, edge oriented, routers with wireless cards, with a standardized
backhaul, some
how got muscled out of the IETF by the powerful forces of the MIP and MANET
groups.  We
played nice, let them hack up the charter into what is now a tenuous set of
problem statements
dangling on the edge of existence.

I for one find it difficult to contribute or create in this type of forum.  Its
completely stifling.  We need
to throw out all the assumptions and start from a clean slate.  We need to
consider the implications of
ultra-wideband, widespread deployment of MMDS/LMDS, OFDM, hybrid fiber wireless
schemes and
how they interact with mobility, and the failure of 3G.  I am tired of arguing
about the minutia of where
an FA lives or whether its macro or micro mobility.  They will all likely be
irrelevant in the forth coming
world of glass pipes everywhere (its easier to lay glass in Nebraska than in NYC
James :-)).

Some folks have approached me about another BOF.  I am convinced it would NOT be
a good thing.
An informational RFC COULD provide a way to articulate some ideas in a way that
at least gets them
documented and shared.  Some other folks have approached me about this concept.
I am in favor
of this.  How about a seamoby4g mail list?  Anybody interested in a 4g seamoby
list?  This would
get all the off charter dreamware chatter off the seamoby list.

As for the SeaMoby WG, at this point I don't know.  We have to see what happens.
It looks to me
like SeaMoby is becoming MIP's newborn cousin at this point.  Hopefully, late
term abortions aren't
allowed.

Thanks,

Phil Neumiller

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:22:07 -0800 (PST)

> I am sorry I still have another 40 email to read, so if there has been some
> revelation since Tuesday (Phil's email) I appologize.
> 
> I have to agree with Phil (N) here, coming back after a few days to my
> seamoby mail folder, I don't recognize the list. Am I still on Seamoby
> mailing list, or this is mobile IP all of sudden?

Well, Phil CC'ed the Mobile IP list, so yes you have been reading e-mail from
people on the Mobile IP list. As I have previously stated, this is a bad
idea... very bad idea. 

So, let's just forget about the past and focus on what's next, and keep it
within this list.

> I thought I came here because the MIP fast handoff groups couldn't agree on
> a draft in San Diego. So why should I sit here on seamoby list and dodge all
> the HMIP, FMIP, X Y ZMIP bullets. I can read that on mobile IP mailing list,
> which I guess I have to resubscribe or something.

Nope. Not at all. That is far from the reason why Seamoby was created. Fast
handoff within the MIP protocol has been on the Mobile IP charter for longer
than this WG has existed.

We were created to offload the Mobile IP WG with non-Mobile IP related issues,
such as CIP, Hawaii, etc. (this is in addition to paging and context transfer,
of course).

> 
> I really enjoyed the context transfer design team, because from the
> beginning, just like Phil said, we started from  a clean slate. Everybody
> was set to produce a single common draft, instead of the battle field of
> drafts. I learned a lot from the team and we added even different solution
> alternatives to indicate that making a choice between alternatives as part
> of the problem. Why can't the mm team do the same instead of bibliography of
> mobile IP?

hmmmm.....

As many of us have stated in the past (including the ADs), simply define the
problem space. Forget about the few that will constantly state that this is
possible within the MIP framework. Of course! It's software, so you can do
anything with it. The better question is whether it makes sense to change MIP
to do what we need.

Anyways, the MM team put together -01, and it is looking quite good, but does
require some additional work, and -02 will be forthcoming, I'm sure. I will be
sitting down with the ADs in Minn. to work out a plan.

> It is sad to see the pioneers of this group (like Phil N.) so disappointed.

well, if we could get past the few that will constantly state that it MIP can
be used as a kitchen sink grinder, floor wax and a desert topping, and focus
on work, perhaps Phil N will be happier...

> 
> In respond to Pat C., I'd say I am all for the design teams, let's continue
> the work. The design team were never closed, anybody can join, even somebody
> as dumb as me, they were just more focused on seamoby issues.

Good, that's the response I seem to get most often.

PatC