>> 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.
Fine, we can continue discussions in Philadelphia.
>> * 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?
It sort of cuts the problems short ... it could give the impression that
one could escape from the context. That was my concern.
>> 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?
Well, it misses at first the very fundamental problem of seamless,
time-constrained handover for mobile nodes ;)
>> 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.
Fine. Let's see what can be done. At least we should start working on
solutions ... Jari is right in the sense that we must start to get them