Hi Jouni and all, Thanks for updating the charter, which is much tidy now.
Sorry for my late response, but I have a couple of comments below: o With regard to enhanced mobility anchoring (mid-session anchor switching), there were a lot of discussions in the past as you know and eventually that idea was not fully accepted by the community. It's ok to handle it in DMM WG, but we also need convincing use cases and effectiveness. Re-anchoring LMAs/HAs with preserving IP address may not be so elegant and efficient. o I was not very sure why virtualization needs to be mentioned. There might have been some discussion about it, but do we really need it in the charter? The DMM solutions should not distinguish between physical or virtualised networking functions. However, whenever applicable, clarifications for specific networking function deployment models are in scope and encouraged. o The fourth paragraph mentions UP/CP separation, but the last sentence is about IP address change, which is described in the fifth paragraph. That sentence may be fit there. In contrast to existing IETF standard IP mobility protocols, mobility management signalling paths and end user traffic forwarding paths may differ; those mobility related functions may be located in separate network nodes. "Solutions may also specify the selection between the care-of addresses and home address(es)/prefix(es) for different application use cases". Regards, -- Hidetoshi Yokota KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc. e-mail:[email protected] (2014/06/13 20:41), Jouni Korhonen wrote: > Folks, > > New update (v9) available. I added most of the editorials from Charlie > (thanks) and the red texts from Alper. > > The lot debated anchoring term (and milestone) is still there. The > milestone does not mention anymore about preserving the mobility > sessions and stuff. That would be up to the solution to define. > > - Jouni > > > > > 6/6/2014 2:47 PM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: >> Folks, >> >> Minor changes.. >> >> https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt >> >> >> IMHO..the charter as it is today, would allow pretty much any solution >> from legacy anchoring to herd of pigeons carrying IP.. ;-) >> >> I have put in editorial changes of my own and clear text proposals >> received from others. >> >> - 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
