On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bechet,
>
> All what we discuss here has been discussed 2-4 months ago already.
> Repeating myself: propose concrete text & change snippets.
>
Jouni, you asked for it, you get it:
I see these three charter items and I don't understand why we have them?
Enhanced gateway and mobility anchor selection
Forwarding path and signaling management
Gateway and mobility anchor re-selection
I suggest making a single charter item as dmm solution protocol so
that we don't have to look at many documents for whatever solution we
select.
I see this item and I don't understand what it is about:
Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network nodes
Is this about the MN dealing with many prefixes?
What if the solution does not require the MN to deal with many prefixes?
It seems like this charter was written from the point of view of what
we had way back in 2012.
Now we are in 2014 and a lot has changed and these changes are not
reflected in the charter.
Regards,
Behcet
> - Jouni
>
>
> 5/30/2014 12:29 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti:
>
>> About two months ago I had made this 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.
>>
>> which still stands, I think.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bechet,
>>>
>>> 5/29/2014 11:52 PM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>
>>>> I was looking at the charter text and noticed one important issue. The
>>>> charter seems to be stuck with the good old anchor think. Almost all
>>>> text is about anchoring, anchor selection, anchor reselection, and so
>>>> on.
>>>>
>>>> However in the past several months, we have seen in Alper's events,
>>>> presentations which seem to have no anchor.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any active draft that talks about the anchors.
>>>>
>>>> In view of this, my question is how are we going to go ahead with this
>>>> charter and meet the deadlines?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I (myself) see still value dragging along some anchoring stuff just to
>>> allow
>>> smoother migration from current deployed models toward less centralized
>>> architectures.
>>>
>>> But you are right that we should not get stuck on those.. and that has
>>> not
>>> been the intent either.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Or else, are we better off with a charter text which is much less
>>>> dependent on the anchors, something which could make it possible to
>>>> progress one of those proposals??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are welcome to propose concrete text & change snippets to the current
>>> charter text.
>>>
>>> - Jouni
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Behcet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
