|The DMM working group will also work on maintenance-oriented and | incremental extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol, specified | in RFC 5213 and RFC 5844. The Proxy Mobile IPv6 work primarily | addresses any protocol gaps required to support existing |deployments | and other standards development organizations using the Proxy |Mobile | IPv6 protocol in their system architectures.
Add Mobile IPv6 or remove the whole paragraph | |Enhanced gateway & mobility anchor selection and re-selection: define | protocol solutions for a gateway and mobility anchor selection that | go beyond what has been, for example, described in RFC 6097. |The | solution should also define a mechanism for anchor re-selection |that allow | preserving ongoing mobility sessions in a single administrative |domain. Based on the above paragraph we have two charter items which basically make up the dmm solution. What is the justification? Is it RFC 6097 (no offense to you Jouni)? What about dmm solution that do not require any anchoring? What about SDN, NFV ideas that have been expressed by Dapeng and others? Sorry but I don't see any enthusiasm on this charter draft in the WG. Behcet
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
