Thanks for the comments. Please see responses inline.
Thomas C. Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Suresh & Behcet,
> just some quick comments on your new ID:
> * first of all the obvious: this is not exactly hitting the basic
> problems identified in the Vancouver meeting. So the question would be,
> why do you propose to proceed otherwise?
This document is just an attempt to have a high level view of the
problem space. This document has no official standing at all (nor will
it ever). It will be used to gauge interest in what problems people are
interested in solving right now. There was no such understanding (of
what to do) achieved in Vancouver. The other problem statement drafts
(including yours) will be the ones that will define the precise problems
to be solved.
> * second I'm thinking about the ID itself: Mobile multicast always
> faces the problems of two complex worlds, mobility & multicast. Very
> easily one is tempted to come up with a neat solution, which then turns
> out to be in conflict with either one of the two paradigms. In cutting
> the problem space short, there is significant danger of turning away
> from those problems, which are hidden but harmful.
Agree. But do you see anything in the draft that suggests doing so?
> Some more details:
This draft was not designed to be a detailed problem statement. I would
like the other problem statement drafts to cover the details. Other than
the details, do you agree that the problems listed in this document
cover the problem space?
> Elsewise: What are the plans for Philadelphia? We might find the time to
> write down some solution draft from the pipe ... at least we can
> contribute in a meeting: any specific plans?
Jari has offered us a room to meet in Philly. I would really love to see
some solution drafts.