Re: [MEXT] About the flow binding charter item

[arno at natisbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard)]

Hello,

marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es> writes:

> Arnaud Ebalard escribió:
>> Hi,
>>
>> marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es> writes:
>>
>>   
>>> So, we would like that the WG express their opinion on both items
>>> mentioned above:
>>>
>>> 1- whether we should replace Flow/binding policies exchange by Flow
>>> Binding rules exchange in the charter
>>>     
>>
>> Maybe it would be easier to define both terms before asking for an
>> opinion. I think the whole discussion started because people did not
>> agree on the definitions of "policy" and "rule".
>>   
> are you suggesting we include a definition of policy or rule in the
> charter?

no, just provide the definitions of both words on the list and then
decide based on those.

>>> 2- whether the information should be sent from the MN to the HA only
>>> or it should also be sent from the HA to the MN and if the
>>> information exchanged in each direction should affect the CoA and/or
>>> the HA address.
>>>     
>>
>> I don't see any specific scenario in which it would be useful for the HA
>> to influence the MN on flow binding. So I am in favour of keeping
>> current focus on the MN to HA side. The reverse direction could be
>> treated in external documents and if there are useful use cases and
>> momentum, that scenario could be reconsidered later.
>>
>> For the HA@ question, I don't see what you have in mind. 
> i don't have anything in mind (really, it is pure vacuum lately)

;-)

> I am just refering to the charter as it is currently written and i
> want to understand where the WG stands on these topics.
> so feel free to make any interpretation and explain what you think
> makes sense. Let's see if we can reach a common understanding of what
> is the work that we should do. that is the basic goal here.

Based on previous comments from Thierry, the "HA address" thing needs to
be clarified.

Cheers,

a+