Hi Jouni,
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]>wrote: > 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. > > The issue here is in a routing based approach such as vEPC or the flat architecture MIP6 extension may come into picture, as Pete explained. So it is not MIP6 extensions that MIP6 based DMM protocol needs which is in charter's scope already. I hope this clarifies. Regards, Behcet > - 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 >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
