I am not against any work which is based on an existing draft. I spoke against having a long presentation and there is no draft.
Another point here is, yesterday I discussed with Marco on this. Any architecture and so called deployment proposal has a sense of solution in it. I don't buy the argument that the architecture is generic and that the deployment is generic. At this point in time there is no such thing. Such proposals represent the authors solution approach.They are reading other solution proposals and they don't like some aspects in those solution drafts and they want to present some alternative approaches. So, as I said before, Marco, Sri, Pierrick, if there are any others, are free to write drafts making it clear that in the draft they are talking about their own solution. There is nothing wrong with it. I hope this makes my point clear. Regards, Behcet On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:36 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Pierrick for the pointer! > And FWIW also Marcos draft-liebsch-dmm-framework-03 addresses deployment and > architecture aspects for evaluating various approaches > BR > Dirk > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Mittwoch, 23. Juli 2014 10:13 > To: [email protected]; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF#90 DMM agenda update > > > >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : dmm [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Behcet Sarikaya >>Envoyé : mardi 22 juillet 2014 19:04 À : Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) Cc : >>[email protected] Objet : Re: [DMM] IETF#90 DMM agenda update >> >>On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) >><[email protected]> wrote: >>> I think you are mixing the topics here. >> >>I am not sure who? >>How can you talk about deployment without having a solution? >>Deployment where? >> >>> >>> Any case, I don't have plans to write one .. >> >>I know that and that's why I kept asking, just in case you might change >>your mind. >> >>Maybe you can write a draft evaluating existing proposals from your >>"architecture" and your "deployment" point of view. >> > > Worth to be considered IMHO: draft-liu-dmm-deployment-scenario > >>Behcet >> >>> >>> >>> Sri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/22/14 9:56 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>You are talking about Gateway Initiated DS-Lite (RFC 6674). >>>> >>>>That is a solution based on DS-Lite, i.e. a variation of DS-Lite or >>>>RFC 6333. >>>> >>>>Again, my plea to you, please come up with your draft and let WG see >>>>what you propose. >>>> >>>>That is the right way to go. >>>> >>>>Behcet >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>dmm mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par > erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les > pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, > used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
