Behcet,
Thank you for constructive feedback. See inline.
3/27/2014 9:51 PM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti:
|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
I see no point even trying to work on client mobile ipv6 enhancements..
|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)?
You know that it just happens to be the only RFC even attempting to explain
how LMAs are selected dynamically. If the reference here is contentious,
I am
happy to remore it.. just give me alternative text.
What about dmm solution that do not require any anchoring
In scope and in the current text.
What about SDN, NFV ideas that have been expressed by Dapeng and others?
Not explicitly mentioned by those hype terms but not prohibited either
in the charter text.
Sorry but I don't see any enthusiasm on this charter draft in the WG.
Then help bring in the enthusiams. The easiest way is to provide
explicit text that we can then evaluate.
- Jouni
Behcet
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
