On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 18:25 +0200, Benjamin Thery wrote: > Antti, > > Thanks for your detailed explanation. This is exactly the kind of > answer I was waiting for.
Sorry for the week long silence, but right after writing the previous mail, I checked my temperature and it was up at +39C. Spent rest of the week in bed. Fever didn't go down until Friday, but now I should be okay again :) > What I find regrettable about the current MIPv6 development process, > is that many things seem to happen behind the scene. I agree. Our development process has been far from what I would've liked it to be, but I hope we can make it better. Previously we had stuff like funder expectations that played a very large role in what we did, while was never transparent to people outside the project. But since we have no funders anymore, we can really try to involve the MIPL community more. > Most of the patches and discussion about litigious points are not posted to > the > mipl-devel ML. And when an announcement like the UMIP one is made, it > is hard to understand what the real situation is, what features the > patch brings and what is the history behind it. Right. With GO-Core and USAGI, we had two sets of funders, two ultimate goals, two sets of everything. Some of which we could communicate to each other (and sometimes even in public), and some which were confidential. We had a separate list for HUT/USAGI discussion. Only project managerial stuff should have been kept there, but it ended up that all HUT/USAGI discussion (like discussing patches) was done there. Also, there were a number of other venues for related discussion. IETF mailing lists and interops were often places where discussion about the draft took place. In hindsight, it would have been very beneficial, if we'd written reports for MIPL mailing list about what was said and done in the interops (of course, within the limits of the interop NDA). This was a bit overlooked, because at some point the people who were interested in MIPL also hang out at mobile-ip ML (now mip6, etc), and many times attended same conferences, interops or IETF meetings. I do hope we can do better in the future. Certainly, the future seems bright once again. We have received word that non-MIPv6 kernel stuff might be going in for 2.6.18 and the rest in 2.6.19. Best regards, Antti _______________________________________________ mipl mailing list [email protected] http://www.mobile-ipv6.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mipl
