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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf