Re: how mobile do we want to be

[Thierry Ernst <ernst@sfc.wide.ad.jp>]

> > May I suggest a compromise view here.  Why don't we fix/focus on the
> > multihoming problem.  In the course of that work we should do
> > nothing to hurt mobility as we must always think about security in
> > the IETF work effort. If there is a mobility solution in our result
> > it will  be evident to all.  
> 
> Generally, I agree. I think using shims for multihoming generally
> seems to me to be an engineering problem, while trying to apply them
> for mobility seems to veer off into research territory.  I talked to
> many people in the hallways about the interrelation between
> multihoming and mobility; this sounds like fodder for a bof in Paris /
> Vancouver.  

I disagree a BOF is needed, what is needed is to tackled with this
specific problem at the **IRTF**. There are more mature topics on which
IETF WGs have been (wrongly) disapproved while this is pretty straight
forward to me that it should be IRTF in the present case.

> I'd strongly suggest that we focus on getting the shim work going
> forward for multihoming and revisit the relationship between
> multihoming & mobility seperately.  We (the IETF) are much better
> focusing on a single problem space.

I prefer what was suggested by Jim, with explicit mention in the Shim6
charter.


Thierry.