Hi Jouni, On Mar 20, 2014, at 6:03 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >> >>> o Mobility state exposing I-D. This would communication >>> between the end host and the network. Maybe also covering >>> the missing parts within the end host.. Are we OK with one >>> I-D or how people want to see this? >>> o .. >>> >> >> There's the API aspect on the terminal (one I-D), >> and there is the MN-network interface ones (e.g., extending RA, DHCP, etc.) > > > So you want an API document? I have some reservations documenting > an APIs as-is. Could this be an extension to RFC5014? I'd see this > approach feasible since there are even (partial) implementations of > the RFC5014 in popular operating systems. >
Yes, we are talking about extensions to source address selection (RFC 5014). > Then the subsequent thing. Each MN-NW interface would be one document, > if I understand the above comment correctly? Which one(s) to do first? > ND or/and DHCP? > Yes. Both. Alper > - JOuni > > > > >> >> Alper >> >> >> >> >> >>> - Jouni >>> >>> >>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> I have updated the charter draft text slightly: >>>> https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt >>>> >>>> Basically: >>>> >>>> Added Sri's comment on PMIPv6 maintenance. >>>> Added Alper's comment of location of mobility functions. >>>> Added links to other IETF WGs on possible mobility enabling technologies. >>>> Added a comment that virtualised network functions are in scope. >>>> >>>> - Jouni >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
