Le 03/09/2014 20:53, Brian Haberman a écrit :
Behcet,
On 9/3/14 2:33 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
You don't seem to understand my points.
That is quite possible. Your comment on the list was "I am against any
deployment work before we decide on a solution..."
I read that as an objection to having the deployment models work item on
the agenda. Please do tell me what I am missing.
Regards,
Brian
Hi,
I am following the discussion and me too I do not quite understand what
is the complain.
I am happy to learn that a if a WG is to be formed then it would be
around a solution rather than just requirements or architecture.
That said, I would like to express a worry along similar lines.
In DMM, precedents and the keen NETEXT, there seems to be a hard-rooted
disconnect between the product developped - (P)Mobile IP - and the
deployments. We know for a fact that 3GPP deployments (2G/3G/4G) do not
use (P)Mobile IP. We also know that 3GPP specs do mention Mobile IP.
To such a point that I wonder whether 3GPP has not the same disconnect
as here.
On another hand, we do have indications of where (P)Mobile IP is used -
the trials, the projects, the kernel code, and not least the slideware
attracting real customers.
The worry: develop DMM protocol while continuing the disconnect.
Alex
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
