Erik, > > Come on. You can't implement or understand MIPv6 if you > don't have ND > > down. It is not even possible. The engineers in MIPv6 are clearly > > qualified to work to enhance ND. > > I think I can implement MIPv6 just fine without section 7.5, > 7.6, and 7.7 in the MIPv6 draft. After all, I'll have 149-3 > pages to implement.
Missed my point. You can't implement part of ND for a feature like MIPv6. You have to understand ND as a software engineer. > > Having those sections separate makes it easier to add more > ND optimizations for Mobile IPv6 as we learn more. > I don't want people that work out e.g. an optimistic DAD > scheme to have to stick that into the MIPv6 document just > because the MIPv6 document talks about DAD. I don't think they should put it in MIPv6 either. It will be another draft and PANA could be another one etc etc etc. Each working group or each engineer will suggest what they need within ND architecture. That's how we build ND and why we moved it to IP layer in the first place. But I agree we need to watch it at the IESG layer. But MIPv6 has been thoroughly understood and unless clear technical problems can be stated in the interest of time-to-market in this IETF it should be let go for this effort. But building an ND Technical Directorate to assist the IESG Layer could be done for DAD, PANA, and other ND fruits to verify they are not insane. This approach gets MIPv6 to PS. The ND Directorate is formed and if MIPv6 is truly bogus then it is only PS we just fix it or change how we do it. I think it is prudent in our community to demonstrate as a standards body we still understand why we are here and that is to produce good specs and ship them. MIPv6 Draft 19 is in fact that and we should move on. > > > I don't believe moving it to separate spec will make it more > > implementable at all. MIPv6 is no longer a MUST. > > I don't understand your point. This issue is not about > implementing the 146 pages in routers; the issue is to get > routers to implement the 3 pages of ND changes that improve > the performance of movement detection. My point was that there were MUSTs taken out in Draft 19 but not these I understand. Any router or host or client that wants or sees a need to do MIPv6 is fine with Draft 19 and if they are not building Mobile IPv6 products they should not care. /jim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
