Subject: RE: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMMDT Solution VsAsolutionbased on MIP6

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 06:58:29 -0700

Hi Henrik,

 > There were many solutions input to the design team.  The 
 > design team has
 > tried to do good work, and offered its best to the working 
 > group.  

=> I don't doubt that the DT has tried to do its best. The question is:
If you agree PMIP was one of the inputs (do you agree with that?) then
why not tell us the reasons for not choosing it? If you simply didn't
consider it, then that's fine too, it'll be good to know that though. 

   The
 > design team has nothing to prove or disprove.  It has simply 
 > attempted
 > to offer good work for consideration.

=> Sure, but it'd be nice to know if something was considered and
rejected. I don't think anyone is legally obliged to tell us that, but
it'd be good to know...

Hesham

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:34:24 +0200

Hi Hesham.

on 2006-10-28 15:58 Soliman, Hesham said the following:
> I don't doubt that the DT has tried to do its best. The question is:
> If you agree PMIP was one of the inputs (do you agree with that?)

I think I've indicated that 3 or 4 times during the last 24 hours on
this list.  Yes.  Why does this have to be repeated so many times
before the question can be considered answered?

> then

I can give you my personal view, but as for the design team, the
proper reference is the DT mailing list archives.  Since this for a
larger part of the time was running on a Telecom Italia server which
later crashed, it is not trivial for me to put the full archives online,
but I will try find the time to reconstruct an archive from available
sources during this weekend.

Regarding my personal view, I tried to convey that to Vidya during
the interim meeting, and thought I had succeeded, but as with the
question you ask above, it seems that it doesn't matter how many times
I say things on this subject, the same questions keep coming back, and
I wonder why.

But above all, I *don't* want this to turn into a 'this solution' vs.
'that solution' -- I've seen that being destructive too many times.
And entering into a discussion of why GTP, or PMIP, or DHCP-based, or
OSPF-based, or any of the other input proposals wasn't chosen would be
to feed that beast.

Instead I want to do my best to do good engineering and look at how
to fulfil the existing requirements in the best possible manner.

> Sure, but it'd be nice to know if something was considered and

You can check the archives as soon as they are online for the DT info,
or you're welcome to ask me personally over a beer regarding my views.

Regards,

	Henrik