Dear all,
After going through the 2 documents, my opinion is that [1] has an
improved technical completeness (e.g. number of mobility protocols
considered for best practices description, and clear identification of
respective limitations) against that of ]2}. It also seems to have a
more logical and consensual structure, in line with what is expectable
from a "Current practices and Gap Analysis" document.
For these reasons, I support the adoption of [1].
Best regards,
Sérgio
On 12/19/2012 08:25 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
Folks,
We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for that. The next
step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" document to serve as
the basis for the future WG document. We consider two documents on this topic to choose
from:
[1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02
[2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01
and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for the WG
document.
Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing list. We
would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner justification for your
selection. The chairs will determine if there is (rough) consensus from active
WG participants to proceed with selecting one document against the other.
The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a longer
three week call now due the holiday season in between.
- Jouni & Julien
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
