Subject: [netlmm] a proposal for ongoing discussion

From: "Roberts Phil-APR042" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:24:36 -0500

Good to log on Monday morning and see we're all one big happy family
:-).

It doesn't appear that discussion of who needs to provide the rationale
for what they want have provided much progress.  Hopefully we can just
leave that and move on.

When we had our interim working group meeting we had a discussion of the
use of the mobility header in the protocol design.  Vidya asserted it
would be good to reuse that, and to that end she posted an email thread
on the ML regarding the advantages of doing so.  I responded to that
last week.  I'd like to see some follow-up to that discussion because it
is couched around technical considerations.  Perhaps that is a way we
can progress the discussion?

One of the important parts of that I believe is a consideration about
whether there is an advantage is reusing a definition of bits on the
wire or reusing a network component (such as a MIP6 home agent).  That
seems to me to be an important distinction, but I haven't seen any
follow-up on that.

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:44:06 -0600

Phil,

Just saw your email now... I agree with you completely.
I responded to Jim's email prior to seeing this... But rest assured that I
will not follow up on that thread.

-Raj