Hi, From: Vijay Devarapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> sorry about the earlier mail. I realised it was rude and not > called for. No. Never mind. (I'm afraid my poor wording may make people feel uncomfortable...) > I will try to rephrase what I said. the CN implementation as it > is described in draft-17 is quite simple (IMO). a lot of care was > taken to make the CN as stateless as possible (at the cost of > extra work by the MN). (As I said in a private email,) The stability is a problem for the implementors. Please note, I'm not saying that the current RO/RR is bad. I like RO and the current draft seems OK but should we have more time to check it? If we find a new method for RO and obsolete RR, how do we handle already shipped RR based implementation? There may be a problem. For example, we had (unverified) HAO in old drafts. Some implementation support us and implement it. But it (unverified HAO) is now obsoleted. I think it is too early to make it MUST. It is not too late after all of MIP6 vendors implement the draft and experient several interop tests and all of us are convinced it is OK to go. Best Regards, --- Keiichi SHIMA IIJ Research Laboratory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KAME Project <[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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
