Hi Jouni, See inline.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]>wrote: > 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.. > > 3GPP may need it in the context of DSMIPv6, just like PMIPv6. > > |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. > > Where? I don't think any text counts as long as it is not in the milestones. > > 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. > > Let me bring back my proposal: First cycle, select one from each category of solutions, client, network based and routing based Second cycle, select one from the selected ones as the dmm solution. Hope this helps to bring the enthusiasm we need :-) Behcet > - 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
