Hi Jouni, I am OK with what you have if you think my concern is already covered. BTW, I am no longer pushing forward with SEAL and am interested in consideration for AERO:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-aerolink/ SEAL was trying to do too much to be all things to all people; AERO is simple, and is really nothing more than IPv6 neighbor discovery applied to tunnels. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 5:11 PM > To: Templin, Fred L; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DMM] rechartering > > > Fred, > > I think your concern (assuming you have SEAL et al in mind..) should > already be convered by: > > [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213, 5844] and NEMO [RFC3963]. > However, mobility management in a limited area, such as within an > autonomous system, is not strictly limited to mentioned IP mobility > protocols but can be any existing or a new protocol solution enabling > the movement of a mobile node. > > - Jouni > > 5/27/2014 8:54 PM, Templin, Fred L kirjoitti: > > Hi Jouni, > > > > I have one small edit to propose: > > > > "However, mobility management in a limited area, such as within an > > autonomous system, is not strictly limited to mentioned IP mobility > > protocols but can be any existing or a new protocol solution enabling > > the movement of a mobile node. Specifically, when solutions are not > > based on IP mobility protocols, the DMM working group should > > cooperate > > with other IETF working groups working on other technologies that > > might allow the mobility of an end host. These working groups include > > but are not limited to I2rs, Lisp, Idr and Forces." > > > > Suggest changing the final two sentences to the following: > > > > "Specifically, when solutions are not based on IP mobility protocols, > > the DMM working group should cooperate with other IETF working > > groups > > and/or consider non-working group items working on other > > technologies > > that might allow the mobility of an end host. These working groups > > include but are not limited to I2rs, Lisp, Idr and Forces, while > > non-working group items are considered based on their merit." > > > > Thanks - Fred > > [email protected] > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 1:51 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [DMM] rechartering > >> > >> > >> Now that the gap analysis I-D is almost on the stage of leaving the WG > >> and the requirements I-D has almost completed IESG, it would be time to > >> return to the rechartering topic. > >> > >> First, the latest revision can be found at: > >> https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter > >> > >> Second, have a look at it. There are few changes proposed by Alper eons > >> ago and corrected milestones pointed by Behcet. > >> > >> Third, let us get this finally done.. > >> > >> - Jouni > >> > >> 4/22/2014 3:55 PM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: > >>> Folks, > >>> > >>> Sorry for letting this topic to rot in a dark for the couple of last > >>> weeks. I'll crank out a revision shortly.. > >>> > >>> - Jouni & Dapeng > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> dmm mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
