Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-mobileip-reg-tunnel-06.t xt

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:04:40 +0200

That's a bit of a biased comment isn't it?
In particular there was more than one person who questioned
your experiments.

>  In order to clarify the situation, the 
 > authors, WG
 > chairs, and ADs have agreed to move it to experimental.

This question wasn't posed to the WG. This is what I had asked when I
was
informed that the fate of the low latency draft was being discussed in a
group which I believe you (James) were part of. Just to clarify, I
wasn't part
of this decision process so I had little choice other than to agree.

=> I am another author who didn't want to agree with
this, but was simply told that after some discussion
(that was not on this list) this seems to be the way 
to go forward. And I only agreed to it because I don't
have the cycles for a long discussion and because we should
move the draft forward. 

Hesham

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:18:23 -0700

> have the cycles for a long discussion and because we should

I am certainly not opposed to re-opening the question of whether the
draft should go to standards track or not, but I don't believe it should
be advanced until there is at least one other independent implementation
of both techniques, besides the one Jon Wood did, and there have been
the same kinds of performance measurements we've made on at least a
handover emulator, and more preferably on a cellular and WLAN protocol
as well, as we've done together with Motorola. This should give the
working group enough data to decide, should it finally choose at that
point to make a decision. I realize that IETF doesn't require this level
of implementation except for routing protocols (which, arguably, these
protocols are), but I believe if a protocol makes a performance claim,
then it is incumbent upon the WG to prove that claim, and describe under
what conditions the claim holds and where it breaks down (if it does).

            jak