Dear all, As I already mentioned during previous email discussions, I think that draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [1], describes well several mobility protocols considered for gap analysis and it describes a clear identification of their limitations! Therefore I am in favour of adopting this draft as a WG draft!
The number of the discussed mobility protocols can be extended and as I already mentioned in previous emails I will be happy to help with this extension. Best regards, Georgios > > > 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 > > dmm@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
