[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposed text for charter
Well, I disagree. This may amount to asking for the
impossible. We can properly require a shim6 implementation to
co-exist with mobility implementations, but we cannot require it
to operate simultaneously with them; that may turn out to be
simply impossible. As I wrote a few days ago, it may be necessary
to instruct shim6 to switch itelf off when some other functions
are switched on.
Jari Arkko wrote:
Ok for me too. --Jari
Bound, Jim wrote:
I agree ....
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: proposed text for charter
About the following item in the charter:
o The solution must not cause problems for mobility. That is, it
should be possible to continue using Mobile IPv6 even when using
shim6 simultaneously. However, any optimizations or advanced
configurations are out of scope for shim6.
I would suggest to write "should be possile to continue using mobility
support protocols such as Mobile IPv6 land NEMO Basic Support"
An additional item such as the following one would be useful:
- The WG will ensure that various mechanisms defined within other IETF
WGs will continue to work when using shmi6 simultaneously. To achieve
this, the Shim6 WG will interact with other WGs when needed, and may
place requirements on the protocols developed by those WGs.