Hi Charles, Actually, in realizing DMM-based mobility management, as you know, they may exist various ways or more requirements for DMM protocol deign tackling the issues raised from CMM. Given the requirements defined in the document is confining, in their ways, explicitly or implicitly the protocol design for further steps. It means that proposed solutions should satisfy or consider the requirements, or they will not be DMM solution in DMM WG at least.
If you see the mail posted by Sergio a few days ago, the multicast part title was changed with 'Multicast Considerations' for right meaning. With the meaning, I think it would go together with the other requirements. Have a look, please. Regards, Seil -----Original Message----- From: dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charles E. Perkins Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:24 AM To: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC #2 starts for draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-03 Hello again folks, I can't type in all the editorial suggestions right now, but at least I wanted to provide some overall comments that cause the document to seem quite inaccurate in many of its claims. Here are my general comments. - The requirements need to be distinguished from the desirable features. For instance, section 4.7 describes a desirable feature, not a requirement. Moreover, the desirable feature may be unattainable. This is important, because if feature is *required*, a solution not providing the *required* feature "must" be considered incomplete and rejected. _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
