Re: Question re HIP dependency [Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches]

Hi Brian,

I saw this question:

At 11:16 AM +0200 7/4/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Question to the WG: given the current state of HIP, do we
>want to consider dependency on HIP as
>
>a) acceptable
>b) unacceptable?

And this answer:

>There really wasn't much response to this one, but my reading of the
>sparse consensus was against solutions that depend on the deployment
>of HIP (but that does not exclude taking ideas or components of HIP).

But, I am not really sure what you were asking or what the answer means...

I do not think that we should, a priori, assume that a multi6 solution will
depend on HIP, NOID, MAST or any other specific mechanism/proposal.
However, I also don't think that HIP should be considered out-of-scope for
consideration as a solution (any more than NOID, MAST or others).

So which way would I answer the question?

Margaret