Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Fast Handoff v4 archives available

From: Haseeb Akhtar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:05:52 -0500

Hello folks,

Ditto. The requirements should have come first before the solution!

Regards,

Haseeb

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luca Salgarelli [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 3:47 PM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      Re: [MOBILE-IP] Fast Handoff v4 archives available
>
> Basavaraj, Andrew,
>
> I would like to add some comments to what Andrew wrote.
>
> > Regards the process: I thought the idea was to come up with a set of
> > requirements, then a strawman proposal that sort consensus and met the
> > requirements?
> >
> > It looks like the starting point was too narrow?
> >
> > It looks like the output from the design team resulted in deltas to
> > existing IDs? (Why are these two IDs technically superior to others?).
> >
> > In addition, weeding out some IDs because they didn't support tunneling
> > (e.g., Hawaii) or MIP messaging (e.g., CIP), etc.  was a bad call in a
> > process that should have been open and inclusive and now looks like on
> > the surface to have preselected two IDs (i.e., fast handoff/ proactive
> > IDs) that have not been proven "better" than others.
>
> I completely agree with Andrew. Several weeks ago I wrote a message to the
> WG asking clarifications about this process, but those questions were left
> unanswered. I too thought that the goal of this sub-WG (?) was to come up
> with a set of requirements. While I do not question the technical
> soundness
> of the proposals (not requirements) that this sub-WG has defined, I still
> do not understand the process through which the goals for the sub-WG were
> set, and how the sub-WG was formed.
>
> I also do not understand how the WG can benefit in the long run from this
> seemingly closed process where no real discussion has taken place on the
> technical merits (or lack of thereof, for what matters) of the IDs that
> were left out.
>
> Would someone please comment on this?
>
> Thanks
> Luca

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:11:17 -0700

> > with a set of requirements.
hmmm... this must have come up when I wasn't there... However, both documents
do list the problem to be solved. If you believe that you have a set of
requirements that haven't been solved, then by all means, bring them up.
Furthermore, if the WG wants to create an I-D with requirements, then I would
be most interested as well.

> > While I do not question the technical
> > soundness

As discussed at the IETF, people that had contributions got together with the
intention of reducing the number of I-Ds to one. I believe that the chairs
decided that people with I-Ds were to work together. I suppose that they
figured that if you didn't have an I-D written up in this space, then you
probably didn't care to work on consolidating the I-Ds.

> > technical merits (or lack of thereof, for what matters) of the IDs that

Which I-Ds? I was quite certain that we took all of them into account.

PatC