Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Draft or Proposed?

From: Charles Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:46:58 -0800

Hello,

During the recent Mobile IP working group meeting, there was a lot
of discussion about whether the revised version of RFC 2002 should
be considered as a new Proposed Standard, or instead whether the
revised specification should be subject to further (extensive) revision
along the way for consideration of Mobile IP as a Draft Standard.

If we make the revised specification into a new Proposed Standard,
it will push out consideration of Mobile IP as a Draft Standard to
a date at least 6 months from now.  Furthermore, additional revisions
will be needed to the document before it can be considered as a
Draft Standard.

If the specification is revised for consideration as Draft Standard
without going to Proposed, then the additional revisions will cause
the current document to be radically different than it is today.

My guess is that Mobile IP is still at least 9 months from going to
Draft Standard.  If an improved specification is needed before that
time, we should cycle at Proposed.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 18:06:23 -0600

One other point that was made during the working group is that some of
the new features in the revision had not gone through enough
interoperability testing, and that going to Draft may require that
they be dropped.  I don't think we're in so much of a hurry that we
need to jump the gun on this.  I suggest we do the cycle back to
Proposed; I think this was the vote of most people in attendance who
had an opinion.

I would also support adding reverse tunneling (mandatory for HAs,
SHOULD for FAs) and support for private addresses to this version of
the draft.  It would be nice if FA support could be made a MUST but I
see the point about many existing implementations breaking; I am just
a little worried that vendors might ignore the SHOULD.

There was some discussion on the "7 second question" that I don't
think was fully resolved.  My feeling is that a hard-coded 7 seconds
is too strict.  I can imagine carrier deployment scenarios (which
might be very different in scale from the testbeds used so far) in
which the operator wants to tune this number.  If it is set too high
then outstanding requests may eat up too much memory.  Too low, and
some otherwise good registrations would be dropped.  Could we change
this to a tunable parameter, with 7 seconds as a default?

-Pete

Charles Perkins <[email-masked]> (CP) writes:

CP> Hello,
CP> During the recent Mobile IP working group meeting, there was a lot
CP> of discussion about whether the revised version of RFC 2002 should
CP> be considered as a new Proposed Standard, or instead whether the
CP> revised specification should be subject to further (extensive) revision
CP> along the way for consideration of Mobile IP as a Draft Standard.

CP> If we make the revised specification into a new Proposed Standard,
CP> it will push out consideration of Mobile IP as a Draft Standard to
CP> a date at least 6 months from now.  Furthermore, additional revisions
CP> will be needed to the document before it can be considered as a
CP> Draft Standard.

CP> If the specification is revised for consideration as Draft Standard
CP> without going to Proposed, then the additional revisions will cause
CP> the current document to be radically different than it is today.

CP> My guess is that Mobile IP is still at least 9 months from going to
CP> Draft Standard.  If an improved specification is needed before that
CP> time, we should cycle at Proposed.

CP> Regards,
CP> Charlie P.