Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] charter review

From: Roberts Phil-QA3445 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:31:28 -0500

Hi Sandy,

        I'm sorry it has taken so long to respond to this email.

        What we have in mind I believe are protocol extensions to mobile-ip
that are based on existing mobile-ip entities such as foreign agents and
home agents, extend messages that are already used, and rely on some kind of
encapsulation or tunneling in a way that is similar to what is being done
today.  Developing protocols that rely on some form of host routing or
application level address management for example would be beyond the scope
of the group.  That's not to say some might find such an approach useful in
certain settings but that the mobile ip working group has its hands full and
won't be considering these kinds of approaches.  Is that clear enough?

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Thuel [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 11:23 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] charter review
>
>
> >
> > The chairs would like to refocus the Mobile IP WG objectives to
> > protocols and solutions that are based on Mobile IP v4 and v6.
>
>  Can someone please explain CLEARLY how you determine whether or not
> "protocols and solutions" are based on
> Mobile IP and are therefore, within the scope of the
> mobileip WG charter? (e.g. do they have to be rfc2002
> compliant?)
>
> Thanks,
> Sandy
>

---

From: Luca Salgarelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:05:02 -0400

Hi Phil.

I apologize if this will be a naive question, but I guess I am not an
expert on IETF procedures.

I think it is now clear what were the technological criteria for deciding
the new charter (no host-based routing or non-tunneling-based approaches
will be handled by the Mobile-IP WG), but I do not understand how the WG
arrived to the selection of such criteria. I do not remember any major
discussion on these criteria being held on the mailing list.

I think there are some undeniable technological benefits in avoiding tunnels
in some parts of a wireless network (I am thinking at access-networks in
particular), such as better efficiency in the usage of the air interface.
In my opinion, ruling out such approaches without having a proper technical
discussion within the WG could hurt the WG output in the long run.

Just my 2 cents about re-chartering.

Thanks
Luca