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

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:05:08 +0300

Hi Brian,

> > Question to the WG: given the current state of HIP, do we
> > want to consider dependency on HIP as
> > 
> > a) acceptable
> > b) unacceptable?
> > 
> >   Brian (co-chair hat on)
> > 
> 
> 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).

I don't think Multi6 & HIP should fate-share.  In other words, I think that 
Multi6 could work on something independent of HIP, if the WG felt that
was the proper direction for the work.

John