Hello James,
In addition to whatever private mail expressions you may have received, I should point out that it is highly inappropriate for working group members in one working group to supply possibly biased information about the general state of consensus in another working group. I would say that the discussion is far from settled. In fact we are in the middle of it. Regards, Charlie P. James Kempf wrote: > So there seems to be some confusion about my statements concerning route > optimization, expressed to me in private email by some WG members. > > Let me clarify that they are being made with my WG member hat on, both > in MIP and IPNG. My IAB hat remains on the hat tree. :-) > > Sorry for any confusion. > > jak > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "OKABE Nobuo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 5:45 PM > Subject: Re: Mandating Route Optimization > > > Okabe-san, > > > > Good observation. I believe we have the rough concensus (in the MIP > > group at least). The running code is needed yet. > > > > jak > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "OKABE Nobuo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 8:35 AM > > Subject: Re: Mandating Route Optimization > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Mandating Route Optimization > > > Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 19:54:03 +0900 > > > > > > > >But we can not, now or ever, allow considerations of existing > > implementations > > > > >conformance state affect the decisions about what new > > implementations > > > > >should be required to implement. > > > > > > > > then we will have two separate set of IPv6 nodes - without > > mobile-ipv6 > > > > and with mobile-ipv6, and they cannot even ping each other. > > > > do you feel it acceptable? > > > > > > > > i'm very unhappy about the delay of mobile-ipv6 spec. it should > > have > > > > defined home address option, set it in stone, and then work on > other > > > > things. implementers cannot support (human resource-wise) drafts > > > > that drastically change content every time the new version > appears. > > > > even if that technology is a good one, this way that won't deploy. > > > > > > How should we apply the IETF motto, e.g. "rough consensus and > running > > code", > > > (especially latter words) in this case? > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > If mip6 people shows experience and validity about route > optimization > > > based upon running code, we will be able to have more productive > > > discussion. > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > ---- nobuo > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 PROTECTED] > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 PROTECTED] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
