On Jun 14, 2014, at 2:37 AM, Charles E. Perkins wrote: > > Hello Jouni, > > Thanks for incorporating some of my suggested revisions. > > Follow-up below... > > On 6/13/2014 3:41 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>> /* What about RFC 5568 (FMIP)? */ >> >> There is the "..such as.." so I think there is no really need to lost all >> possible MIP6 variations. > > FMIP is particularly important when developing solutions > that are aimed at localizing handover signaling, and I think > it deserves particular mention, at the cost of adding ten or > fifteen more characters to the charter text.
Okay. >> >>> /* What does "eventually" mean?? */ >> >> erm.. removed.. > > Well, it's still there. So, maybe, the other dozen or so D'oh. > revisions that didn't make it into charter revision #9 were > intended to be included also...? I'll await further follow-up > until I can see whether my other comments were rejected > or simply overlooked. Please take a look. Hmm.. seems i did not include the comments in the milestones part.. my mistake. > In particular, misuse of the definite article "the" can be > interpreted to restrict development to a single solution. > And, as has been discussed, I think that the dmm WG is > very likely to develop a suite of smoothly interacting > solutions. Moreover, it should be observed that on a > single mobile node, different applications might require > different treatment for their end-point IP address. This > might also encourage further use of multiple IPv6 addresses > by a single mobile node, which in my opinion is a positive > feature. Or it could elevate the importance of proper > treatment for flow mobility. > > > Is it just me, or do other people prefer "RFC 6275" to > "RFC6275"? Spaces are cheap.. will add those. - Jouni > >> >>> >>> Also, the suggested dates for chartered work items seem >>> quite unrealistic to me. >> >> ;-) +3 months? > > That would at least enable some believability. > >> >> >>> I noticed that part of the charter fit nicely in my 80-column >>> (vi) text window, and part of the charter does not fit nicely. >>> I could also fix that if desired. >> >> Fixed. > > Thanks! > > For convenience, I attached the rfcdiff output from my previous > text of the charter compared to today's version #9. If doing so is > not helpful, please let me know. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > <Diff dmm_charter-Jun10,2014.txt - dmm_charter-Jun10,2014b.txt.htm> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
