Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Re: HAO and BE processing will be mandated

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:24:04 -0400

Folks,

    this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere at the point.  Perhaps
we
can drop it?

    The decision of MUST/SHOULD is up to the working group to recommend in
its
spec, and Jari will reflect that decision when he produces the final spec.
The consensus that has been recorded so far is MUST for HAO processing, MUST
for
BE processing, SHOULD for RO support (although it's not listed in the
node/host/
routers requirements section, 9.1 says it SHOULD be supported by all nodes).
We'll
look at the recent thread before determing whether the earlier consensus of
MUST for
HAO and BE processing are still intact.

    When MIP sends the spec up to the IESG for approval, we'll let the NG
working
group know the summary of the requirements that the MIP working group has
recommended.

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 3:29 PM
> To: Vijay Devarapalli
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Re: HAO and BE processing will be mandated 
> 
> 
> >but I keep hearing from the KAME folks again and again
> >"we already have IPv6 implementations which do not understand
> >HAO, we dont want HAO mandated" (which makes no sense to me).
> 
> 	MUST for HAO is self-contradictory at best.  if HAO is 
> a MUST, we don't
> 	need bidir-tunnel (since it won't be used).  if we have 
> bidir-tunnel,
> 	HAO is okay with SHOULD.
> 
> 	i don't want a pie-throwing match, but it seems that 
> you want it...
> 	i keep hearing from you "we can ignore currently-deployed IPv6
> 	codebase" which is total nonsense (or total ignorance 
> of the current
> 	situation) to me.  IPv6 is not a toy in your lab any 
> more.  we have
> 	people depend on it, we have serious IPv6 commercial 
> network operation.
> 
> 	i suggest to leave the SHOULD/MUST decision to jari, 
> the main editor.
> 
> itojun
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:41:18 -0700

thanks Phil. this approach sounds good.

Vijay

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA / 島慶一 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:37:28 +0900 (JST)

Hi,

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>

> thanks Phil. this approach sounds good.

I agree, too.

We have had enough discussion and I am almost satisfied (though the
discussion have not closed yet, but this is not a prpblem).  Many
people insist their opinion, almost all WG members hear them, and the
chairmen and the editors have got enough information to go forward.

Thoughout the discussion, it seems to me that the IPv6 WG will not
accept the mip6 draft if the HAO/BE requirements are MUST.  Even if we
leave them with MUST (of course we can, the decision can be done in
the mip WG inside), I think that the IESG never pass it.  This creates
another delay for the standard process of the mip6.

I think we can leave the text for HAO/BE to the editors and wait for
the new draft.

Best Regards,

---
Keiichi SHIMA
IIJ Research Laboratory <[email-masked]>
KAME Project <[email-masked]>

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:16:37 +0900

>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:37:28 +0900 (JST), 
>>>>> Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]> said:

>> group know the summary of the requirements that the MIP working group has

The ipv6 wg members will check the next draft and will make comments
on it when it is out , not only at the point of the IESG approval.
The ipv6 wg members will also make comments at the mip wg last call
(since the last call will be announced to the members as well), and at
the IETF last call, especially if they have objections to the draft.

> another delay for the standard process of the mip6.

I'm not sure if this is really the case (because we cannot tell all
about the future), but I'm 99% sure that many ipv6 wg members will
make objections to the MUST.  And, the objections will surely
introduce additional delay to standardize mip6.  (I'm not talking
about my own position about the MUST vs SHOULD, but talking about a
story that will be very likely to happen, by observing the discussions
so far.)

So, I hope the next draft will consider the various tradeoffs among
ideal solutions to MNs, effects to CNs (both existing and future
ones), and the standardization/deployment schedule.

Again, I agree the ball is now in the mip wg and we should wait for
the next draft.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]