Behcet, Check some of the documents in MPLS/Routing areas.
DMM to most part is about deployment. Without bringing the deployment aspects, documenting DMM solutions will be immature. Sri On 7/22/14 8:08 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <sarikaya2...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi Brian, > > >On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Brian Haberman ><br...@innovationslab.net> wrote: >> >> >> On 7/22/14 10:49 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> The agenda has been slightly updated (shuffling around the slots and >>> arranging more time to the charter/next steps discussion). Some >>> presenters are affected slightly (-5 minutes). see >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/agenda/agenda-90-dmm >>> >>> Regarding the re-chartering and the next steps. We have a tight >>>deadline >>> to meet if we want to ship the new charter text to the next IESG >>> telechat. Brian will reveal the gory details of the expected >>> re-chartering process and timelines. >>> >>> We are also supposed to come up (again) with a rought agreement of the >>> deployment architecture(s) that DMM "functional elements" map into. > >Sorry but I don't understand why we have to work on deployment >architectures? > >I don't remember any such work before in IP mobility. Is there any RFC >that can educate me on this? > >I understand that some architecture work is needed. As far as I know >almost all solution drafts have an architecture. >Wouldn't that be enough? > >Kind regards, > >Behcet > >>This >>> will be discussed as a part of the re-chartering slot and recapping the >>> discussions we had earlier. >>> >>> We are also supposed to come up with a rough agreement how to progress >>> from now on. This could mean (note the conditionality here) a series of >>> interim meetings and setting up small groups (or design teams) to work >>> on the initial set of the solution space drafts. We need to step out of >>> the "progress every second IETF meeting" mode ;) >> >> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html >> >>> >>> Also keep in mind that the start of the new work poses some >>> serialization whether we want or now: first stabilize charter & reach >>> rough consensus on the deployment models/functional elements. These can >>> be done in parallel. Note that rough consensus does not mean a ready >>> spec or spec at all. Second execute with the solutions space.. the >>> deployment models work might benefit from having a slight heads up >>> before other drafts. These can be done in parallel, though. As a >>> reminder, the charter may change on the route before it gets approved >>> but we can do the opportunistic thing and start working as if the >>> charter were already "approved" when the WG ships it. >>> >>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > >_______________________________________________ >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
