AW: : The Diameter Maintanence and Extentions WG proposed charter

hi julien,=20

we are not fully sure what fmip and mip really requires.=20
we have started with some thoughts but more input is needed.=20

i do not see a problem with the fact that the protocols are developed in
different working groups.

ciao
hannes

> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:07:21AM +0200,=20
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Julien,
> >=20
> > >> For the purposes of the DiME WG proposal, I think I am=20
> still lumping=20
> > >> MIPv6, FMIPv6 & MIPv6 bootstrapping into one topic.  I=20
> think having a
> >=20
> > >> single AAA document that addresses these points probably=20
> would be=20
> > >> useful.
> > >
> > > I don't think that we can have one document for all these=20
> > > things. You  can use Mobile IPv6 without FMIP6.=20
> >=20
> > I look at FMIPv6 as an optional extension for MIPv6.  So,=20
> if you need
> > AAA support for FMIPv6, then you probably will need to also have AAA
> > support for MIPv6.  However, if you are looking at only MIPv6, then
> > any extensions to support FMIPv6 would be purely optional.
>=20
>  yes you're right.=20
> =20
>   On the other hand, what makes me think that 2 documents could be
>   better are the following arguments:
>=20
>   - FMIP6 is from the mipshop WG whereas MIP6 is from the mip6 WG.=20
>   - FMIP6 probably requires a new Diameter Application whereas MIP6
>     bootstrapping requires only AVPs.
>=20
>  Julien
>=20
> >=20
> > >> However, as the MIP/FMIP work is still on-going, we can=20
> address this=20
> > >> after there is consensus in the mobility-related WGs about what=20
> > >> specifically is needed.
> > >>=20
> > >> Does this sound reasonable?
> > >
> > > It sounds totally reasonable.
> >=20
> > Good.
> >=20
> > John
>=20
> --=20
> julien.bournelle at int-evry.fr
>=20