Hello Gerardo,
Comments below...
On 5/17/2010 8:17 AM, Giaretta, Gerardo wrote:
You have one comment on the recommendation in the draft to have
separate binding cache entries. This was extensively discussed
in the NETLMM WG and also at the IETF Dublin meeting. There was
a mailing list discussion after that in September/October 2008
which led to the conclusion in the current version of the draft.
You can find more information in the archives at:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netlmm/current/msg05533.html
Thanks for that link. It was most enlightening,
especially in the context of the ensuing discussion.
Having reviewed the latter, it seems to me quite likely
that the consensus call was (at least) premature.
For instance:
I object to this. There was absolutely no consensus on this for
you guys to decide. There were clarifying questions that people
had on what exactly you meant by multi-homing. You didn't respond
to any of those emails.
and
I am sorry, but I thought the discussion was either incomplete or did
not steer towards one particular way or the other. For instance, I
didn't get a clear answer for my question on why there would be a single
BCE when two different interfaces are in use. Could you please clarify?
I could go on. And, without naming names, I want to emphasize
that the abovementioned objections were made by some real experts.
Do you have any links to discussion that _supports_
the consensus call?
Furthermore, I still suggest (constructively) that
_at the minimum_ a system architect ought to be allowed
to have the design freedom to identify the two mobile
node identities (and thus the relevant BCEs).
What is the downside of enabling new systems to
offer such obvious improvements?
Or, would it be better to start writing the ...bis
document already (just kidding...)?
Regards,
Charlie P.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf