Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] IPv6 advanced socket API extension for MIPv6

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:04:15 -0800 (PST)

Hi Alex and Keiichi,

> 
> Erik Nordmark wrote:
> >> I understand Mobility header is one of IPv6 extention headers. It
> >>  looks natual for me that mobility header definitions have the 
> >> 'ip6_' prefix.  (And our implementation also does that, not 
> >> important of course)
> > 
> > Thus the question for the current and future MIPv6 implementors is 
> > if it is more important to follow what folks have already 
> > implemented or have the naming be more consistent across the board
> >  and switch to a different prefix. I don't have strong feelings 
> > either way; I just think it makes sense to encourage 
> > implementations to use similar names and structures for the packet
> >  headers. Thus to me it is more important to pick one than arguing
> >  for picking a particular choice.
> 

I agree that we should choose a protocol name and prefix definition
of data structure that make most sense to the implementors.
 
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> One implementation has file name is mip.h and mobility header type is
> a separate structure that is named mh.
> 
> Find replace with proper tools is easy to do too, so I can live with
> other naming conventions.
> 

That's quite true. It's important to choose something that is 
meaningful in the current context of the spec and for possible future
changes.

Keiichi SHIMA wrote:
> ip6.h.  But, since the Mobile IPv6 spec is huge enough, defining
> constans in a sparate file (like mip6.h) may be good.

It makes sense to have a separate MIPv6 specific file for the above
reason and since mobility header is a separate nexthdr (protocol hdr)
type.

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> When looking into homogenizing we might want to take into account that
> whatever is decided will probably and eventually need to be suggested
> to the Austing group too (if it will consider future releases of their
>   current POSIX revision).

I suppose, we may compare it with RFC2292bis; if we decide to follow the
same path, then this IETF document could be the guideline for Socket API
standards organization like Austin group.

That's why during the presentation, one of the questions was:

 if it makes sense to consider this MIPv6 Advanced Socket API draft
 as something similar to RFC2292bis ?

BTW, in order to reach a rough consensus on the protocol name and data-structure
prefix name, we'll ping the MIPv6 Connectathon implementors and others who
provided input in this list and privately. If anyone in this list 
particularly likes to participate in that discussion, please send me an
email directly.

Thanks,
-Samita