Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Re: HAO and BE processing will be mandated

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:39:54 -0700 (PDT)

I've been using KAME code since August 1999 when I patched FreeBSD 3.4
to support IPv6.  I think the community owes a great debt to all the
KAME developers, without whose work we probably wouldn't have as great
an installed BSD IPv6 base as we do.

So I mean no disrespect to the KAME developers when I say that I think
you're wrong on objecting to HAO being a MUST.  There's no personal
element involved.  I don't think anyone means to downplay the signifi-
cance of the installed base.  It's certainly not the first time that
a sizable installed code base has been obsoleted by a new feature.

It seems to me (admittedly merely an interested outsider) that the
pro-HAO arguments are persuasive.                  -- George Mitchell

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 05:48:44 +0900

>a sizable installed code base has been obsoleted by a new feature.

	we are not arguing for SHOULD for HAO just because of conformance
	(or because "old KAME installations become non-conformant").

	we are arguing because we believe MUST for HAO has no technical
	requirement (only political), imposes incompatible requirement against
	existing documents (2460), and as a result will slow down MIP6
	standardization process.  i expect AD/IESG pushback if MIP6 gets
	submitted with MUST for HAO, and IESG review takes forever due to the
	backlogs they have.  you will really want to avoid IESG review
	roundtrip.

itojun

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:00:46 -0700

>         (or because "old KAME installations become non-conformant").

good. 

>         requirement (only political), 

thats not fair. we gave enough technical arguments.

> imposes incompatible requirement against

that is something I cant control.

Vijay

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:03:00 -0400

Given that there is no documented method to do stateless HAO
verification, I believe it's extremely premature to make HAO a MUST.

						- Bill