Subject: RE: Returning home and L bit (Was Re: [mobile-ip] MIPv6 v20 question re L bit)

From: "Greg O'Shea" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:05:10 -0000

>This is a normal part of the IETF specification development.
>Its a Proposed Standard. It will never disappear as an RFC, if 
>that's what you are asking. A DS version may appear with some 
>features removed as explained above, but hopefully its 
>backwards compatible.
Okay, thanks, I still tend to think that all RFC are equal. I'll come
quietly.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 11 February 2003 12:44
>To: Greg O'Shea
>Cc: Ed Remmell; Vijay Devarapalli; Mobile IPv6 mailling list
>Subject: Re: Returning home and L bit (Was Re: [mobile-ip] 
>MIPv6 v20 question re L bit)
>
>
>
>Greg O'Shea wrote:
>
>> 1) What is are plan and the remit for this MIPv6bis working group?
>> 2) If we plan to rehash the current spec then why are we asking the 
>> IESG to approve something inferior?
>
>This is a normal part of the IETF specification development. 
>Standards get first to the Proposed Standard status, and then 
>they are later upgraded to Draft Standard if there's 
>sufficient interoperability and other experience. As a part of 
>the upgrade (or other recycle) they can be edited, features 
>not implemented by at least two implementations get removed, 
>errors may be fixed, etc.
>
>I'd expect there to be significant input from experience to 
>the specification, including:
>
>- Tuning of the constants
>- Error and other cases missed from the specification
>- Practical deployment experience of ha-mn security and key management
>- Effects based on other developments e.g. optimistic DAD
>- Experiences on dhaad and prefix discovery
>- Etc.
>
>One possible idea for an editorial change is that at the time 
>the bis RFC is being made, we should also split the document 
>into smaller pieces. Not rewrite the whole thing, but e.g. 
>remove an unused function, or put ha/mn/cn into different 
>documents, or split according to your suggestion of 
>virtual/real home networks.
>
>> 3) What will be the status of the current spec if the IESG 
>approve it. 
>> Can implementors depend upon it?
>
>Its a Proposed Standard. It will never disappear as an RFC, if 
>that's what you are asking. A DS version may appear with some 
>features removed as explained above, but hopefully its 
>backwards compatible.
>
>An editorial split should not affect the implementor's ability 
>to depend on the document. Only technical modifications will 
>affect it; but would you object in year N+1 if we made 
>real-world home links optional?
>
>> 4) Could the IESG are wasting its time on the current spec or could 
>> the MIPv6bis WG will be wasting its time after the horse has bolted?
>
>No, I think whatever we do we are bound to release a bis RFC 
>sometime after the first RFC comes out, particularly if it 
>provides significant new functionality and will be widely deployed.
>
>We could of course try and split the document right now as 
>well. But I'm not sure how beneficial it would be just as an 
>editorial exercise -- might be better combined with some 
>deployment experience which at the same time would allow us 
>other edits. Greg, you are right of course about the hard work 
>we need to get the spec stable and close all issues. But 
>again, this alone will not close all issues, I think we should 
>focus on the technical changes we should do or not do now.
>
>So, the only question that we should have is whether we now 
>have something in the spec that we indeed consider wrong -- 
>but we've debated the issue of the virtual home nets vs. 
>keeping the on-link-home functionality in the spec. And it 
>seemed to me that the WG reached an opinion on that although 
>obviously not everyone agreed. This happens sometimes, though.
>
>Jari
>
>