Subject: [mobile-ip] LMM Process thoughts...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:11:46 -0500

Some background:

0. I am not sure if WG members are aware that the WG went through 
    a consensus call on picking a WG document on hierarchical mobility 
    sometime last year. At the time of the consensus call, there were no 
    responses. It's only after almost a year of this work becoming a WG 
    document that WG members have expressed concerned with the I-D
    and the process. So if you think the work was slipped into the WG 
    under the radar, that's hogwash. I wish people would pay attention to 
    WG last calls and consensus calls on the list and respond to them. 

1. The reason for starting an analysis of the requirements was not to
   ratify the HMIPv6 I-D which was approved as a WG document and to
   tailor the requirements around a proposed solution.
   The renewed interest in local mobility is the reason for doing a
   study of the requirements, and this is not just an exercise for
   academic reasons or to stimulate interest in this work in the
   WG. We obviously want to use these requirements to ensure that any
   solution for LM is something that most people in the WG agree on or
   there is broad consensus.
   
   So what do we do, now that we have defined a set of requirements:
   1. We can re-evaluate the proposed protocols against these
   requirements, although we do not necessarily want to go through a
   protocol beauty contest. 
   2. We can make the necessary changes to HMIPv6 as per the
   requirements and simplify the current proposal/I-D to only address
   these requirements and drop everything else from the I-D
   3. If there are concepts from the other draft (regreg6) that is not
   a WG document that need to be considered, I am sure we can include
   those by extending the current WG doc

2. The IETF is an open forum and people are welcome to send in different
    proposals to the same problem. Ultimately WG consensus will make the
    decision. The only problem is that if we keep on doing this, we will
probably
    never converge on any solution as such and the implications of this are
    no implementations/interworking and adoption by the industry.

-Basavaraj

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:37:29 -0400

Hi Raj,
  Thanks for the clarifications. HMIP is there because there is a need for it.
The requirements were drafted not because some people wanted to have yet
another RFC with their name stuck. RFC writing is not the same as conference/
journal paper writing. If IETF can not come up with the needed RFCs, the
industry will eventually end up developing them somehow.
  Having said that however, the problem that gave rise to the recent noise is :

when Phil R. came up with the initial requirements, nobody asked where we are
heading. People jumped on it including the authors of HMIP.
  The lesson is that the rules of the game should be made clear at the outset.
[email-masked] wrote:

> The only problem is that if we keep on doing this, we will
> probably

--
Behcet