John, That would work. But I am already working on my IESG appeal and case for stateful so go for it. I will state my case to the IESG once it is done with Last Call as appeal when/if it is done.
Thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:41 AM > To: Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Mobility in Nodes Requirements > > > Jim, > > > > I don't believe that servers, for example, need to implement > > > mobile node functionality. If a node is fixed and will not > > > move, what use is mobile node functionality? > > > > A server in a helicopter or plane is mobile for a few > applications. I > > understand I am trying to make a point that this exercise > needs to be > > focused on more than the term "node". > > So, perhaps I should have said 'Nodes which change their IP > addresses, for example base on Mobile IP, MUST implement > mobile node functionality.' > > Would that kind of text cover your needs. > > > > > > Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for > > > > > correspondent nodes. Routers do not need to support route > > > > > optimization. > > > > > > > > > > Routers MAY support home agent functionality. > > > > > > > > Routers SHOULD support the HA is correct effort. > Otherwise MIPv6 > > > > don't work. > > > > > > Not all routers need to be Home Agents I don't believe that > > > plain, vanilla routers will be affected by home agent > functionality. > > > > Routers that implement MIPv6 SHOULD support HAs. Again context is > > everything. > > That text works for me. > > John > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
