Subject: [seamoby] Was *?, Now a consension??

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:38:03 -0600

Jeez Loueezz,

I think Mark Twain once said,

"Always acknowledge a fault frankly. This will throw those in authority off
their
guard and give you opportunity to commit more."

So here goes....

Hello Mr. James Kempf,

You make Andrew and I sound like the martyrs of the  IETF.  I can't speak
for
him but I am quite flattered that you have chosen to bestow this distinction
upon
us.  Last time I checked I worked for a struggling company that is trying to
build
REAL products attempting to solve REAL world problems.  So if my academic
hubris has become overwhelming I am quite happy to hear that I have gone
"overboard" and I am quite willing to yield to concensus.   My Mama said
"I didn't raise no fool".  I want to make things better than they are no
matter what.
YES, some of my ideas are "out there", but then again there is one in every
bunch
right?

-pdn

James Kempf of Sun Microsystems wrote:
> I think Phil N., Andrew C., and the others that have new ideas in
> this area need some space where they can explore exactly
> what is the right way to do mobility at the edge and in the
> core, without regard to precedent. The IETF is not the
> right place for this work, since the intent of IETF standards
> is to facilitate interoperability and deployment. The IRTF
> is.

---

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:40:09 -0800

Hi Phil,

There seems to be some kind of opinion that doing something in IRTF is
consigning it to some kind of abstract realm where it will never see the
light of day.

Quite the contrary. The whole point of doing this work at IRTF is to get
it "fully baked" in a place where the full implications of doing it could
be followed without having to shoe horn it into existing precident.

Does anybody know how IPv6 got done? I think IRTF was essentially
morbid during that period, but it has been recently revived. If IRTF isn't
the right place to do it, then maybe we need to figure out some other way,
but I would rather see the work done in a way where it can be fully thought
through than hemming and hawing about how to fit it in under mobile IP.

                 jak

---

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 05:00:39 -0800 (PST)

All,

I've somehow lost the original thread that caused this discussions, but
telling people to go play in another sandbox doesn't normally foster good
working relationships. I am quite sure that Jim had no ill intentions when he
originally sent the e-mail, and perhaps we can let this thread die.

As far as where the work belongs, I haven't (yet) seen anything that is so
half baked that it belongs in the pressure cooker.... but we will see as our
problem statements develop.

PatC