Subject: RE: [seamoby] Yet Another BOF?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:25:20 -0600

A few corrections,  :-O <- (FOOT) :-)

Please respond to Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>

> 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.

pdn>That email was very MUCH intended for both groups.  Bad idea?  Maybe.
pdn>I thought it stimulated a fairly useful thread with a short life.
pdn>The answer I got from Raj may be of interest to the micmob des team.
pdn>If the COA changes (and there is no MIP) infrastructure, it is
pdn>considered micromobility!  I can site some examples to explain this.

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 I

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).

pdn>Yes, indeed SeaMoby currently has a completely mobile IP inspired charter.
pdn>You would think that the OBAST BOF never happened the CRAPS BOF never
pdn>happened since absolutely nothing from those BOFs made it to charter.
pdn>Those drafts, that work, is pretty much in limbo.  The only perceived
pdn>important thing for SeaMoby is to work on the stuff that Mobile IP wishes
pdn>to expel (at least this the way the IESG constructed the WG).

> 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...

pdn>Phil N. might have been happier with a different charter!  Phil N.  may
pdn>never be happy!  Phil N. might be happier with a different chair!  JK Pat

Phil

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:50:42 -0800 (PST)

> pdn>considered micromobility!  I can site some examples to explain this.

ok, then you don't mind me responding when someone wonders why all the MIP
folks are all of a sudden on our list.

> pdn>Yes, indeed SeaMoby currently has a completely mobile IP inspired
> charter. pdn>You would think that the OBAST BOF never happened the CRAPS BOF
> never pdn>happened since absolutely nothing from those BOFs made it to
> charter. pdn>Those drafts, that work, is pretty much in limbo.  The only
> perceived pdn>important thing for SeaMoby is to work on the stuff that
> Mobile IP wishes pdn>to expel (at least this the way the IESG constructed
> the WG).

There is *nothing* stopping this WG from working on the MM portion of OBAST.
However, work in the IETF does need to be justified. Simply stating that it
cannot be MIP doesn't but it with management. We need to provide justification.
 I am really not sure why we are expending all of these resources arguing this
very point over and over instead of simply doing the work...

> pdn>never be happy!  Phil N. might be happier with a different chair!  JK Pat

You were at the meetings, you knew what was going on. Nothing has changed.
Justification is still required.

You are free to discuss any chair issues you may have with Allison. She is the
AD overseeing this WG.

Now if you don't mind. I'd really like to kill this thread, and let real work
continue.

PatC