> From: heinerhum...@aol.com
> Whenever I mentioned, how badly MIP is handled by all models of the
> well-positioned RRG-contributors, the response was silence. In the
> LISP[ mailling-list] discussion this issue is officially
> deferred.
Assuming that by "MIP" you mean 'mobile', and not 'multicast' or
'multihomed', this is in good part due to the fact that mobility is
explicitly outside the scope of the LISP WG charter; the WG's charter was
the result of some fairly tense negotiation, and I gather the Area
Director would look unfavourably at both i) the WG straying outside its
charter, and ii) diverting into other topics rather than making sure it
gets its listed deliverables done promptly, and on schedule. Having
said that...
> Bottom-line: Let's push LISP as it is and let's think about MIP
> later, when LISP is well anchored.
This is in fact not true, as Dino has pointed out: a fair amount of
thought has gone into how LISP could support mobility, and there is
a draft.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
