This is my exact point about this spec. It seems if this will continue without a focus as Kurtis says below and I have stated previously we will need a serious applicability statement.
Because it is BCP I am backing off a little as most of the market don't care about our BCPs. But there needs to be applicability statement. /jim >-----Original Message----- >From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 11:24 PM >To: Jari Arkko >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Mobility in Nodes Requirements > > >> Jim may have a point here about the server in a helicopter. >But where >> do we draw the limit? How do we know that 3000 kg IBM >mainframe isn't >> being flown around in a cargo aircraft? Also, the type of the >> interface on the device may have significance. Or the application; a >> sensor reporting its findings using a single packet would not need >> mobility. > >I have the feeling that are trying to match a solution to a number of >problems, rather than to match a number of problems to a solution. >Mobility will give you <...>, and problems that match this can >use this >approach. Problems that do not needs to come up with something else. > >Is the space shuttle a mobile node? > >- kurtis - > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
