Hi Jouni and all, With regard to the milestone, it looks getting more aggressive. If we think of the current pace of creating the problem statement and requirements documents, submitting the I-Ds to IESG by next March doesn't seem to be very realistic...
Just a few other comments below: (2014/06/14 8:53), Jouni wrote: > 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. Then Why not RFC5949 for PMIP? ;-) >>>> /* 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. Many RFCs don't have a space between them, but it should be ok. Regards, -- Hidetoshi > - 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 > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
