Hi Satoru, I copied Jouni's mail and removed ietf and iesg from the list.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thank you for the review. See my initial comments inline. > > 10/7/2014 8:50 AM, Abdussalam Baryun kirjoitti: >> >> Dear IESG, >> >> I received you message request for review, but there are some issues >> missing for my review. For example there is no milestones presented even >> though the submitted charter states below >> >> "The working group may decide to extend the current milestones based on >> the new information and knowledge gained during working on other >> documents listed in the initial milestones. " > > > When we submitted the re-charter text we were given an advice to leave them > out - for some reason. Anyway, these were the milestones at the time of > finishing the text in the WG: > > Feb 2015 - Submit 'Enhanced mobility anchoring' as a working group > document. To be Proposed Standard. > > Feb 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' as a > working group document. To be Proposed Standard. > > May 2015 - Submit 'Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network > nodes' as a working group document(s). To be Proposed > Standard. > > Nov 2015 - Submit 'Enhanced mobility anchoring' submitted to the IESG. > To be Proposed Standard. > > Nov 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' submitted > to the IESG. To be Proposed Standard. > > Feb 2016 - Submit 'Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network > nodes' submitted to the IESG. To be Proposed Standard. > The above clearly states that three different protocols will be developed by DMM as Proposed Standard. You are an operator. Can you please comment on the possibility of adoption by operators three different protocols for DMM? BTW there is no mention of deployment models and related milestones. Regards, Behcet _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
