Alper,
4/5/2014 2:24 PM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
Hi Jouni,
For the DMM solution, if we need extensions on the PMIPv6 or MIPv6, we'd do
that -- naturally. I think this goes w/o saying. It's just part of the solution.
And I now think the charter text does not aim that aspect.
Right. Could be sloppy wording but if the DMM solution needs (P)MIPv6
enhancements, those are in scope. They both have always been.
I guess that PMIPv6 text is about maintenance of PMIPv6 outside the scope of DMM
"problem space".
If PMIPv6 needs some extension that is not related to DMM, the place to do that
in IETF would be the DMM WG.
If so, OK, that's an extra, which I have no objection.
This is correct, regarding the latest addition of maintenance text.
I do not know specifically what we'd need to do on PMIPv6, or CMIPv6 (outside
the scope of DMM space).
But I cannot imagine why we'd let PMIPv6 go in but exclude MIPv6.
Ok. If you see it beneficial to add MIPv6 also into the maintenance
part, then fine. Honestly, even if that gets mentioned there it is not
to be considered and open invitation to work on client MIPv6 specific
"outside DMM scope" topics just because it is in charter.
- Jouni
Alper
On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Jouni wrote:
Alper,
Thanks for the proposed text. I am not entirely sure about the addition
of the client mobility. It was not discussed during the meeting when we
were advised to add the maintenance part.
What do the others think?
- Jouni
On Apr 4, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Alper Yegin wrote:
Jouni,
One more thing:
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.
We shall not shut the door on the client-based mobility.
Hence, I propose the following revision:
The DMM working group will also work on maintenance-oriented and
incremental extensions to the Mobile IPv6 protocol, specified
in RFC 5213, RFC 5844, and RFC 3775.
I removed the last sentence because I wasn't sure if it really added any value.
Alper
On Mar 26, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
Folks,
Take a look at the latest revision. I have added the initial stab
for the milestones. Comments and flames are welcome. If you want
something to be changed, just propose text & diff. You might also
want to say why the change is needed.
https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt
- 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
