Re: mumti6dt drafts as WG drafts?

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> with respect to the HBA draft, imho it would be better to separate the 
> security mechanisms used form the protocol itself. I mean imho it is not 
> such a good idea to hardcode the security mechanism inside the protocol. 
> HBA is, at most, one of the possible security mechanisms for multi6 
> imho. there may and probably will be others. For instance it makes sense 
> to support a different security mechanism based in cgas (only cga i 
> mean) in order to support mobile environmets, Probably in the future new 
> security mechanisms can be defined.
> So making a clear distinction between the core multi6 protocol and the 
> security mechanism used is good imho

I agree with Marcelo. To put it in slightly different words,
I believe HBA is modular enough to be defined on its own.
For the shim and functional decomposition merging would
be more appropriate.

--Jari