Dean, Yes to all your questions.
Henry On 6/26/08 10:26 AM, "Dean Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:42 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > >> Hi Henry, >> >>> Yes, I know, developing HIP code looks like opening a whole new can >>> of >>> worms, but nothing compares to what we are looking at now when >>> trying to >>> traverse NAT, support mobility, multihoming, etc. for each >>> application >>> protocol and their various flavors separately. >> >> yes, that is what HIP is about (i.e., implementing those functions >> at a lower layer so that they do not have to be redesigned by every >> single application-layer protocol). >> > > This asks the question "Why don't we believe in HIP in this role?" > > Is it because we've seen HIP struggling to advance for many years and > think we can move more quickly? > > Is it because we think the IETF's immune system will suppress HIP but > that application-level work can move through? > > Is it because we think that doing this stuff at the HIP level requires > widespread OS and IP stack changes, but that we can deploy application- > level solutions without it? > > Is it because we think that if HIP solves the problems, then there > will be no fun work left to do on applications? > > Or is there something else? > > There must be some reason, as I would think that if people really > believed in HIP that the entire resources of the IETF would be bent > towards getting it wrapped up and ready to go, since solving these > problems again and again for every different application makes no more > sense than would reinventing IP for every application. > > -- > Dean _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
