Marco,
5/28/2014 3:35 PM, Marco Liebsch kirjoitti:
Hi Jouni, all,
let me pick up some comments again, which we should clarify.
About anchor selection:
Referring to the milestones, having the anchor re-selection document
separated from the advanced anchor selection only by 3 months does not
seem to be useful, even if you consider re-selection to be used only for
advanced
DMM deployment and operation, whereas basic anchor selection is required for
any DMM deployment with decentralized data plane anchors.
I understand this document treats solely selection and runtime re-selection,
not the associated establishment of routing/tunnel states according to the
Actually, I was in an opinion that re-selection would also cover the
needed parts for possible re-routing of traffic.. whatever the
mechanisms is.
Does anyone else share the same view?
selected anchor. So, I think both aspects, selection and re-selection, should
go into a single document. Unless the WG decides that re-selection is too
advanced,
then it may go into a separate document when the base selection spec is almost
ready,
as it will depend on it.
About forwarding path and signaling management:
In particular if the support of runtime/mid-session anchor change is considered
for the first
set of DMM solution documents, the described work item about 'forwarding
path and signaling management' should be given a milestone, as this is
essential if anchors are changed mid-session and IP address continuation
is expected. So far there is no document about this work item in the
charter list.
Right, any suggestions for the actual document name and time lines?
Inter-working between mobility functions and network nodes, e.g. routers,
requires the use of some non-mobility protocol. DMM should at least describe
which states (identifiers, locator addresses/IDs, ..) to expose through these
protocols. That's what I understood behind mobility state exposure, whereas
the text in the work items list reads more like this is about announcements
from the network to an MN about the characteristics of an IP address to support
the MN in picking the right address for an application. I know it's more a
terms issue,
but we need clarification what we expect from a work item.
The latter is what I had in mind.. mainly the MN<->network communication.
Hope the above makes sense and we can easily clarify.
Sure.
- Jouni
marco
-----Original Message-----
From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
Sent: Dienstag, 27. Mai 2014 10:51
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
