Hi Jouni, On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nos...@gmail.com> 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. 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 ;)
Design teams? Do you know about netlmm experience? I looked at netlmm WG pages on tools.ietf.org. DT had a draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02 Please look at this protocol and compare with RFC 5213 which was the final product of netlmm. Some of you may remember, PMIPv6 proposal came in from nowhere and in a historic WG meeting that proposal took over. So my question is what guarantees that is the DT is going to produce the right solution and why repeat the history again? Regards, Behcet > > 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
