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

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> 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?

Well, that's exactly why I summarized as I did - as so often, the question
was too binary.

     Brian