Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] new area

From: "Qiang Zhang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:24:37 -0500

exiled?

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 9:03 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [mobile-ip] new area

Hi folks,

   the Mobile IP WG will be moving to the Internet Area.  Thomas Narten
will
be our
new area advisor.

Phil

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 12:02:48 -0500

> exiled?

Hardly, and I hope the rest of the WG doesn't feel this way. While
much of the WG may not have been aware of this, the INT ADs (me and
Erik Nordmark) and Allison Mankin (TSV AD where Seamoby lives) have
been giving the MIP WG quite a lot of attention over the last few
months. And we do have one recent success story. 2002-bis has now been
approved by the IESG. Hopefully, a number of other drafts will make
its way through the IESG in the coming months.

There have also been discussions for a long time about how MIP isn't
really a routing thing in the first place. It isn't working on routing
protocols, for instance. So there has always been an argument that the
Internet Area was just as an appropriate home for MIP as the Routing
Area was.

And with the recent tragic loss of Abha, the timing of the move seemed
to make sense.

Thomas

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:09:56 -0800 (PST)

While I have no real qualms about moving this, I
don't think it's quite fair to say that MIP isn't
a routing protocol. Indeed, I think that thinking
of it absolutely no different than a full routing
protocol is helpful and instructive. Many of the
current set of issues (security in particular) are
linked to routing across virtual interfaces
(tunnels) which isn't especially MIP specific.

		Mike

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 13:39:22 -0500

Michael Thomas <[email-masked]> writes:

> While I have no real qualms about moving this, I don't think it's
> quite fair to say that MIP isn't a routing protocol. Indeed, I think
> that thinking of it absolutely no different than a full routing
> protocol is helpful and instructive. Many of the current set of
> issues (security in particular) are linked to routing across virtual
> interfaces (tunnels) which isn't especially MIP specific.

In other words, now that its in the INT area, people will be asking
why isn't it in the Routing Area? :-)

I agree though that there are arguments both ways.

Thomas