Subject: [mobile-ip] Protocol Decision Fixed?

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:49:51 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Phil,

>I'm hoping we don't restart the protocol selection process.  If there are
>compelling reasons to do so we shall.  The requirements gathering is more of
>a way to get some convergence on what is really needed in the protocol.
>There has been a fair amount of reflection that has gone on since the
>working group selected the HMIP approach.
>
>

A requirements phase is usually gone through in order to define what
the protocol needs to accomplish. Doing a requirements analysis
subsequent to selecting a protocol is a bit like putting on your
bathing suit after you've jumped into the water with your cloths
on. :-) The tendency is to "cook" the requirements to satisfy the
already selected protocol. IMHO, we are seeing a bit of that
now, with the authors of the selected protocol arguing strenuously
against including requirements which their protocol currently
can't support. In addition, they seem to be getting support from one WG
chair and an AD who may have some vested interest in keeping 
the protocol decision fixed, despite the somewhat dubious technical 
grounds on which it was selected in the first place. Meanwhile, those other 
members of the working group who have spoken up have largely been arguing in the 
opposite direction.

If the IESG and WG chairs decide they want to keep the protocol
decision fixed, then let's simply drop discussion of requirements
and rubber stamp HMIP. I'm perfectly fine with that. There's no point in wasting 
transcontinental bandwidth on email any further. Clearly, we're in the 
"political" layer of the IP stack here. :-)

		jak

---

From: Gopal Dommety <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:25:42 -0700

> >working group selected the HMIP approach.

I am not sure if this "fair amount of reflection" was done.

I agree with James that we should have the requirements and then worry 
about protocol selection/design.

-Gopal

---

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:29:20 -0700 (PDT)

> about protocol selection/design.

and for what it's worth, the requirements should be listed in an
Internet-Draft (even if there are no intentions of publication), and each
requirement should be justified.

The WG should get to review, and do a last call on the requirements.

*then* you start worrying about protocol selection.

PatC

---

From: Theo Pagtzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:44:00 -0700

I would be more than glad to participate in the editing of such draft.

Please consider me in if such request is in effect by the WG chair hats...

Theo

UCL/ Mobile Systems

---

From: Theo Pagtzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:41:54 -0700

I would concur with the constituency that we need to be FIRM on the requirements
first...

We should have done that way before people accepted ANY LMM as a working group
item...

unfortunately we have to pay the price now...but better late than sorry...

Theo

UCL/ Mobile Systems